User talk:Tryptofish

Retired, and not coming back. [5] [6]

I do want to say thank you for the kind words to the editors who posted here. But this is permanent. It makes no sense to donate volunteer time and effort if I am going to be treated with disrespect.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry

I don't pretend to understand the entire back story, but I'm very sorry to see this. I greatly enjoyed working with you, am proud of what we did, and know that this place will be the poorer for your absence. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. And again ditto. And thrice ditto, alas. A great loss to the project. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. I don't pretend to actually understand any story, but never mind.

Really ?

That would be such a loss. please reconsider.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I appreciate the contributions you have made to wikipedia over the years, and I think your ability to work in areas of conflict while avoiding personalization of disputes is a great asset to wikipedia. I encourage you to return when you feel ready.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey Tryptofish. Yah lately has sucked :-( Thank you for all your efforts over the years. I have truely enjoyed working with you and it is with great sadness to see you go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to say it will be tough to see you go. Dealing with stressful topics is already hard enough even though you've done it well (and it's helped make stressful topics I've edited slightly more manageable), but regardless of personal stuff going on, you deserve a break. Considering that personal stuff though, I won't speculate on if it's an acute short-term or a more serious long-term issue, but definitely don't feel like you owe more to Wikipedia to the point it draws you away from obviously more important things at this time. If your editing did indeed end yesterday, you've done more than plenty to be able to say all done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was sorry to notice this. Thank you for all you did for Wikipedia and farewell, Tryptofish. I'll always be glad to see you around should you return. —PaleoNeonate – 10:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hope that, at some point in time, you will reconsider. Sorry to see you go. Best wishes, El_C 11:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No!!!

We took a vote and it's been decided that you're not leaving. Wikipedia can't afford to lose you. Yeh, Wikipedia is badly and intractably screwed up in some areas and abuses it's best people. Just gotta avoid those and eventually try to fix them, which will take some fundamental fixes and that will need the top 1% best people like you. So please strike your post :-)

More seriously, you owe Wikipedia nothing (quite the reverse)and you deserve a good and pleasant life so do whatever you need to to have that. If we're lucky that will include you being here tomorrow or some day. May the wind be at your back.... North8000 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Because our readers cannot find useful information if there are empty user categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, C1 doesn't apply to categories that are populated. But once they delete the category, they'll also remove the red-link category from this talk page, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To anyone who still watches this page: could you please keep an eye out for this kind of crap and see if you can do something about it? I'd like to be able to take a quick look at my talk page without being made to feel like my head is going to explode. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the background of what led you to leave; I assume from clues above that it was not this. But if it was, I'd understand. This place is becoming increasingly, relentlessly anti-human being. FWIW I commented at the CFD. But while I'm here, I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. You'll be missed. You're good people, Tryp. Not quite as good as me, but damn close. Vaya con Dios. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a diff that I put at the top of this talk page, where another editor summarizes (with a few inaccuracies that are not related to what concerns me) what led me to this; interested editors can work back from that to get the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been remiss

...partly because of a health issue and a little Doc-In-The-Box surgery, and now that I'm back on track, I came by to say "hi" only to find this sad news. It's not often that one finds me speechless but this is one of those times. 💔 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, and no worries. I do continue to look here from time to time, as I have every right to do, but I really am done donating volunteer effort to improve content or to try to help resolve disputes. But I do want to let you know that I heard the interview with you on Innovation Hub, and I knew that it was you right away. I really enjoyed that! (While I'm at it, I also hope the health stuff is fine for you now, as well as to let everyone know that the health stuff of my own that I mentioned just before leaving was utterly trivial and had nothing to do with my leaving, and that I'm just fine physically and mentally. Insert joke about "mentally" here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to know you're in good health and will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for letting me know about IH - I didn't know the interview was included on their website podcast. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What in the world is going on?

I've been chasing diffs for 20 minutes now and I can't find any indication of what this is all about. EEng 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):My sincere apologies if anything is leaving you feeling frustrated. What's going on, as far as I'm concerned, is that I am through with donating effort to this project, and would be quite content to make no posts here whatsoever – but I feel that I have every right to simply read here about anything going on that refers to me, and to be offended when something is hostile to me. If nobody takes any shots at me, I'll be entirely silent. So all I want is to be left alone. I don't think that's asking very much. I know that's not what you asked, but I don't think that it would do anyone any good for me to put a detailed complaint here. The locus of it follows from the two diffs at the top, and if to some extent it doesn't make sense, that's because it doesn't make sense, and that's all I'm going to say. But, really, I do appreciate your concern. After ec: maybe what comes below explains it to some extent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: start here, here, and here, for the context behind this, where Barkeep49 merely suggested both parties could get a fair hearing at AE.

Trypto, please decide if you are retired or not. Per this, no I did not notify you (you said you were not coming back) and no, I did not suggest administrator action against you,[7] any more than Barkeep49 did. I am sorry that you seem to find simple directives, asking people to walk back commentary or AGF, apparently offensive. I am sorry that you didn't tell us about your draft while you were working on it, only letting us know at the 11th hour, but we all did our best. Since, as a retired user, you want to be notified when you are mentioned, please consider that you are. I believe my good faith efforts, asking you to stop pushing toward an arbcase, are in plain view on your talk page before you blanked and retired. I continue to ask same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to go fix my sister-in-law's heat, but I'll just say quickly that implying Tfish is "high-maintenance" isn't going to get you very far with experienced users throughout the project. It may be true (I don't know) that in this particular situation he's asking for some unusual (for him) level of consideration, but he's built up a large reserve of capital he's entitled to draw on now.

Tfish, I'll try to untangle this when I get back (not that I have any hope of being the one to change your mind) but, y'know, [insert usual stuff about not burning bridges, saying anything you might think better of later, etc etc etc and so on and so forth]. EEng 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng:, in these particular discussions, it could be helpful for you to note who the "experienced users" are. IMO, the page I linked to describes editors who retire at the mere mention that their conduct (along with others) might be reviewed impartially at WP:AE (with no blame assigned in either direction), and then ... don't actually "retire" as stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

By experienced users I mean editors who have seen and worked with Tfish on many articles, policy discussions, and dispute resolutions over many years. EEng 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Where I tend to use that term for editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with. As a group, we tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add that I hope you realize (and I'm sure you do) that there are a substantial number of editors who have been building top content for far less than 15 years, and that those editors (as a group) also tend to hold WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT in high regard. To relate only to a specific group of editors' capability based on "tenure" rather than ability demonstrates to me how easily WP:CIR can be misconstrued, and why we should AGF before jumping to conclusions (although that may be the only exercise some actively engage in). I have 8 years invested in WP, and while Tryp has not always been on my side (to his fault ), I have always respected his input, mediation capabilities, and sincere desire to find resolution. No one is perfect but we all deserve a proper level of respect for our input, regardless of whether it fits within the realm of popular opinion. I think the long and short of it is that sitting on a high horse means you have a longer distance to fall if/when you get bucked off. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you find a "sincere desire to find resolution" in the diffs I provided? Or a desire to enact one RFC format, rejected by many editors for various reasons, which was worked on without telling anyone else until very late in the process, while repeatedly raising the issue of an arbcase? (I appreciate and respect your eight years of solid content work, I suspect I may have been on many more bucking horses in my life than you, and you might re-read the evolution of the "experienced users" commentary to distinguish use of the concept as it applies to these discussions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

editors who have been building top content for 15 years ... that's the crowd I am most associated with – even if you do say so yourself, that is. Just so you know, I am substantially less impressed with the FA crowd's talents than are they themselves (though as a group, they exhibit powers of self-congratulation that are truly extraordinary). High horse (Atsme's words above) hardly does justice. EEng 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I was wondering why you walked in to the "experienced users" issue here at all, considering the most "experienced users" in the discussions are in agreement about Wikipedia policies. From what I can gather, it appears you meant to say, "experienced friends of Tryptofish". Have you now had a chance to catch up on the discussions ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I brought up "experienced users" because you termed Tfish "high maintenance", and the fact is that editors with wide experience in article and project space would have a hard time seeing him that way. I'll add that many of the FA crew do not qualify as widely experienced, because long dainty teas during which every added or dropped comma is the subject of multiple posts, thank-yous, and ritual congratulations, instead of someone just doing it, doesn't get you what I would call wide experience in the project's many facets. EEng 22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not term Trypto "high maintenance". I linked to a page that explains why one might ignore editors who left in a fit, as an explanation for why I didn't ping him. (Why are you so focused on FAs?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your link implicitly characterized him. I brought up FAs because you bragged about "building top content for 15 years"; if by that you didn't mean FAs then that's a relief, because there are plenty of FAs which ain't so great. EEng 22:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, back on topic after the odd reference to "experienced users" (there has only been one non-"experienced user" by any definition in the discussions to my knowledge, but curiously, Trypto quotes them in diffs at the top of this page).

Trypto, whether or not you are retired, I am asking you, again, the same thing I asked repeatedly before you put up the retirement post: please refrain from stirring the pot. It was unbecoming before, and is even more unbecoming now that you offer unfair criticism of Barkeep49's very moderate approach from the distance of "retirement", and it is not helpful towards efforts to a "sincere desire to find resolution". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sandy, I'll be blunt (and I can generally only recall positive things from you when I've come across you before), but the tone of your comments here really does come across as stirring the pot to the point of badgering regardless of intent. Especially since Trypto has indicated they don't intend to really interact outside brief somewhat recent comments at this talk page anymore, it's probably better if folks just drop the stick on this particular section. EEng had a question, Trypto responded (also indicating they wanted to be left alone on this subject), and it's probably best for others not to "jump in" given the nature of what was lead to this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have missed a piece: the fact that Trypto made an accusation aimed at me in his last post.[8] That's not "stirring the pot"; it's answering a direct accusation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think you'd really be better off leaving this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sad

I didn't think there was any point in writing something here because I saw the retired notices. But since you're reading occasionally I would just like to express how sad I am about your leaving. I am also regretful the actions I did that precipitated your choosing to step back. I hadn't realized how close to the breaking point you were and if I had I would have phrased some stuff differently. I don't think my going long there is likely to help things (but if it would let me know and I'll write more). So let me just conclude with the fact that I think Wikipedia is a better place with you as an active editor than you not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you, sincerely, for that message, which I appreciate very much. I feel that I should give you a response, but with the caveat that I do not want it to precipitate a flurry of comments from other editors who want to take issue with anything that I say. First, it is entirely correct that I have been questioning whether or not to continue here for quite a few months now, starting around the time that MPants had his conflict and continuing through what happened to Ritchie (who I'm happy to see has returned) and through the Fram fiasco. That all happened before the present situation. But I do not see it as me being "close to the breaking point". It was an entirely rational decision on my part, and it's not like I owe Wikipedia anything or need to satisfy any sort of criterion in order to decide to stop being an active editor. I made a comparison of the pluses and minuses just after the comment you made about AE, and concluded that this had become a net negative. And I'm quite enjoying having a couple of hours each day being freed up that I am spending on other things, quite productively.

But, since you came here to comment, I'm going to give you two specific points of feedback, as to what went wrong. (And that will also spell it out for other editors who have been asking me what happened.) First, I had told you very clearly on your talk page that I would be able to refute each of the accusations that were made against me, but that my doing so would necessarily be lengthy. I did not want to do that unilaterally, because I knew it would trigger a rebuttal to my rebuttal, which would have made things worse instead of better. So instead I told you clearly that you should ask me for my side before reaching any conclusions in your role as an admin. But you expressly did not do that, and were even somewhat dismissive about it. The second point is that you expressed a clear, and incorrect, opinion as to what should happen if the AE complaint against me had been followed through on, and you most certainly did not (as portrayed in other comments above) state it as being a neutral place where both sides would be able to work out their differences. And that, in turn, would have set up a predetermined outcome against me if the other editor had chosen to follow through. That's what I think, so take it or leave it. And please understand that I do not want anyone to treat what I said as a reason for de-adminning. God no! It's just honest feedback, in case it helps in the future, and nothing more.

And the bottom line to all that is that I'm not seeing any reason for me to volunteer to subject myself to that kind of experience. I continue to watch with interest what is happening with that dispute, but I'm not going to be involved with it in any way. I'm also watching an ArbCom case that has implications for what bothers me about what happened to MPants. And who knows, maybe the time will come when I will think to myself "I told you so" about both of those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

PS. I just remembered a third point. Although you made one comment to me about redacting one thing that I had said, you never really told me that you had any broader concerns. If you had, I would have listened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. FWIW I did know you could produce diffs if requested and I did not presume what the outcome of an AE filing would be. In the end I didn't feel comfortable with levying any formal sanctions against you and choose not to. I wish I had made that point clearer at the time. Anyhow I really do appreciate the feedback and will definitely return here after I've processed it a bit more to read again and further consider how I can improve as an editor and sysop. Best, 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work

		The Fishy Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles!  — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish,

I very much appreciate the hard work that you have put into aquarium fishes and aquascaping articles. Simply studying aquascaping, shrimp keeping and other related hobbies is very satisfying, rewarding and peaceful as I'm sure you know.

I believe that if you take some of the drama areas out of your watchlist, and focus on the fun and satisfaction of editing within the hobby, then you will have a more pleasurable experience. I also believe that you have much more to contribute and share with the readers who are the silent majority that never find their way to the talk pages to say "thank you". I think that you have had a greater impact for their benefit than you know and I hope that you will continue to do so.

Perhaps a bit selfish of me but I would like to see you upload photos of your tanks as well as the inhabitants in them. I would enjoy hearing about them. I surf Youtube quite a bit to see what others are doing in the hobby and I think that you might appreciate the experiments in this list. Among other things, he's had some success converting terrestrial grass and mosses into candidates for the aquarium. I also imagine that his sentiments about the hobby's community in his channel video linked above are apropos here. I believe that you have edited here for many of the same reasons that he does what he does.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A very fishy thank you very much for such a wonderful message! I appreciate it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the WMF servers crashed today. That's what happens: I go away and everything here falls apart! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping you’d notice. I crashed them in protest of your leaving. EEng 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that crash is the perfect excuse for them to change their name to Wikipedia Foundation. 😳 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Like --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

Bad timing, it seems. Tryptofish, I hope I always treated you with respect, you and others. You and others, if you feel I don't, please tell me. I decided to stay in this mess in 2012, then because I felt I'd not do those a favour who would just have liked that, and still today because I came to believe that I can make this mess a bit less messy. So could you, but enjoy a break if that's best for you. I remember those who can't change places any more, including Fylbecatulous and Brian, with thanks for what they did. Thank you for what you did! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Last call

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices will close soon. I know you've been off wiki for a while, but you spent a lot of time and effort in the early phases, and I didn't want you to miss your chance to influence the outcome, too.

IMO the RFC has gone remarkably well and has been much more pleasant than the discussions leading up to it. There is a lot of good information in the comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI (1)

On your question about socks (not a huge fan of multi-editor discussions on someone's talk page), there was this case ironically. Wouldn't seem like a match based on some edits anyways, but I know I'd come down like a hammer on them if that actually was the case. I can't think of anything that would really make me say sockpuppet for sure rather than new editor quirks overlapping, but if I do, you don't need to worry about it and let others do that. Enjoy your mental health and avoiding these sorts of things.

Glad to be done with workshop comments on that related issue. Lots of text on my part unfortunately, but I also had to deal so much on both sides (Jytdog issues and other editor issues) that I felt the need to speak up. You were very justified too (and I agree on harsh restrictions if they come back). In the end, they exhausted community support on their legitimate behavior issues despite the other messes that I would hope they know they're entirely on their own and not getting help on improving if they do come back. I gave up on that awhile ago and was mostly there for my own concerns, despite claims, rather than Jytdog coming back. At least it's kind of nice to say I'm not going to worry about that anymore after airing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I can't really say that I exactly "enjoy" my mental health, I do thank you for giving the sock issue some thought. (And per the typo at the workshop page, I also "command" you for all the effort you have put into this, wink, wink.) At this point, I think I'm ready to go back to being gone, with a sigh of relief. BTW, I've gotten interested in theoretical physics, of all things, and have been teaching it to myself, which I'm actually enjoying (and Wikipedia's pages on the associated mathematics are abysmal). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PS, for anyone wondering, we are talking about this: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll clarify then and say enjoy what not having to worry about these things can do for your mental health. I took enough of a break at least that I'm kind of excited to get back into some bug editing now. I'll agree that some math pages are horrible; I have some on my to-do list for statistical analyses I have some good background on, but I kind of dread starting in on them. That's a broader issue than just Wikipedia when it comes to literature in that field though. There are some papers I kind of want to ask the author(s) if they didn't want people to use their statistical method when they wrote the paper. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you corrected the link in your opening comment, and that makes a lot more sense to me. Obviously, it wasn't Jytdog, but I had not known about there having been that kind of overlap. Makes me think all the more that there is a "good-hand, bad-hand" thing going on here, but... not my problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Was just reminded of this, and while I couldn't pin anything down, I agree there's some mannerism that seems familiar. Hopefully it's just deju vu on both our parts, so I'm just going to write it off as that since I'm also trying to avoid any "new" drama.

Also, apologies for "involving" you at AN. I guess technically you were already being involved before I chimed in, but I almost didn't ping you just to respect your retirement. Thanks for your comments on civility too. Even my patience has been wearing thin in that realm, especially when someone tried to a pull a "maybe they're acting that way because of COVID-19". That sure flies in the face of those of us who don't act uncivil even though we've lost people to it. Either way, I hope all is well. Critters are still crittering over here, and that's taking up most of my time nowadays. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

About the SPI, I've come to the conclusion (based on what I've seen since then) that the resemblance was just a remarkable coincidence, not socking.

About AN, no worries, and thank you for what you have said there. I really had intended to stay out, out of consideration for the 1-way IBAN making it impossible for them to respond to me. But I got in because of my own free will, and it was the garbage being spewed by some other editors that I felt the need to counteract.

I'm doing fine in the real world. I just realized from your comment here that you might have lost someone to COVID-19. If so, I am very, very sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're watching...

I had you in mind when I added this. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's so nice, thanks so much! I'm watching, briefly, but I really don't want to post anything unless someone else initiates something where I feel it fitting for me to reply. Just fyi, I watched Chasing Corals per your recommendation (see, I am watching!), and was deeply moved by it. And I liked that article about Wikipedia (except for where they misnamed NPOV, and where they interviewed that oddball grandmother). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The trick is being a grandparent and not looking the part but then, one has to wonder who set the bar on looks? ^{No, not that kind of bar, although it may help. Atsme} _Talk 📧 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Hi Tryptofish - just to let you know that the above made FL yesterday. It wouldn’t have but for your intervention, for which I am hugely grateful. I hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times and that you are enjoying doing what you are doing. Ever. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the multiple pings

I realized after I left my first comment where I did, that it really applied equally elsewhere, so I repeated the header in those two places, which, of course, resulted in the multiple pings. I wasn't trying to hurry a response. Respond or not as and when you like ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, no worries! And that's very kind of you to say that. I have responded, in detail, and it took me a long time to compose it.

For those playing along at home, this is about the ArbCom Medicine case, that grows out of the same problems that led me to, unsuccessfully, retire. I've temporarily come back in order to try to make that case come out right. I'm also finding that doing so has been terribly unpleasant for me, and I'm very eager to be done with it. In just a few hours, the workshop phase is going to close, and I'm looking forward to it.

And, Paul, I've been quietly looking in at other things here, including, from time to time, the talk page of my little friend EEng, and I've seen what you have told him about civility, and you are right! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about your retirement, and other problems. As for EEng, he seems one well worth saving, so I've become his personal scold and Socratic gadfly, we'll see. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm actually quite enjoying having more free time (except for during this case). Perhaps EEng would respond to a spanking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The workshop has closed, and now (hopefully) I'm going back to not being here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What is going on?

The evidence[10] does not match the remedy.[11] See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_bluerasberry. Since you know about the case can you tell me what is going on? I had a minor role in pricing. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to tell you. I think that there was a sense that you had a lot of sanctions before, and they felt the need to do something serious, and the topic was simply the topic at hand. But I don't make the decisions. Perhaps Barkeep49 could explain it better than I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think ArbCom is best positioned to speak for itself and don't think I am able to say more about what is going on than has already been said. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Tryptofish, it was good to see your input today. I know that you remain fed up with incivility here, but I just want to mention that you are missed and that all your past contributions are appreciated. I am hoping that you will check in from time to time. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. I do look in pretty regularly, out of curiosity, and it's kind of sad how frequently a new drahmah pops up just as the previous one ends. But I'm very much withholding any content contributions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What the critics are saying

I was looking at, um, another website, and found this: [12] (scroll down to June 7, 3:29 AM). Quotes me and describes what I said as "extremely dumb". Happened ten days ago, and I only saw it just now, but I figure I just have to share! Now I know I'm doing something right! (In fairness, I once long ago called the person who said that "a fourteen year-old white boy", and maybe they just saw that now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For saying this. Not necessarily about that case specifically, but the general sentiment. I’ve become much more frustrated of late that the community seems to be insistent on giving people every chance to prove just how incompatible they are with our values and ideals. Maybe I’m jaded, but I don’t see that as a healthy thing for any group. Anyway, it’s a frustration that I know a few others have had lately. Community moods shift and we’re apparently in an AGF above all else moment now. Anyway, you’re not the only one who has similar thoughts, and it’s nice to hear a Recognized Name(tm) say them on occasion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, and thanks also for getting the entire process started. As you can see here, I'm retired-and-yet-not-retired, whatever that is. I'm just flat-out disgusted with what the culture here has degraded into, and I'm only dropping in from time to time to, I guess, be a single-purpose account whose purpose is to try and do something about it. If things improve, maybe I'll eventually resume content editing, but if not, not.

I'll say to anyone reading here: remember the last time you recorded your favorite TV show on VHS tape using a VCR? Me neither. There is no fundamental reason why Wikipedia cannot become obsolete too. The most essential feature of WP was "anyone can edit", that wiki-style crowdsourcing would actually work. It was a terrible idea on its face, and yet has worked absolutely brilliantly, and vastly better than the alternatives. So far. But I think that we are starting to bump up against the limitations of "anyone can edit", and it remains to be seen whether we can adapt. The servers aren't going to go dark as the hasten-the-day folks predict, but the creation and maintenance of content will just gradually peter out. I mean it very literally when I say that "anyone can edit" is starting to be something that is accepted without critical thinking, in the way that cults do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve never really been huge as a civility enforcer guy (think Eric and some of the usual people that refers to.) People argue with each other on the internet and I generally think that in cases of people who mean well and are actually trying to align with our values, then yes, we should find a way to try to let them contribute.

What I don’t have much tolerance for are the individuals who in archaic terms have shown that they are not people of good will. I don’t think our principles require us to find a reason to assume that people who bait others and laugh it off as a joke, see every discussion as a battleground, manipulates facts to the point of lying, etc. as assets. I think there’s an unfortunate trend in this community now that thinks AGF means that we have to try every way to keep someone who has been around 6+ months and has a few thousand edits. AGF really is important, but so is keeping people who actually are people of good will vs. those who appeal to the principle to cause more problems. Anyway, my mini-rant. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I also have no problem with people who joke around, as some of my best wiki-friends frequently do, even though we also have users who disapprove of that. It's like: if you use a dirty word, bad, if you use humor in your user space, bad, but if you condescend to other editors or if you live in an alternative reality and want everyone else to join you there, well, that's just the diversity of the community. It's like the view of civility of a peevish child, with no nuance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

:) ?

[13] EEng 22:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean! Not to worry. I've been getting huffed at for "not coming back" but coming back; that's why. But just now amid edit conflict, I had actually decided to replace it with something better. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Special:WhatLinksHere/Chris_Sherwin ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there a particular series of edits that added so many links? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No - the other articles that linked to Sherwin's page are related. It's a spreading vine of knowledge and Chris' article is part of that. It made me smile. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

He's listed on Template:Animal welfare, quite appropriately, and that's transcluded on a lot of those pages. (I took a quick look, and at first had trouble figuring out where the link to his page was.) Thanks for letting me know. When I think of all the people WP has lost, there's so many of them. He is much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Tryptofish, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Interview

I've been meaning to ask you a lot of questions since we last talked. First and foremost, what's your take on Neuralink? I used to live a few blocks from their offices. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't followed that particular company at all, but I've been (on and off) following the basic research in that field. I think that the basic research is making progress at a really impressive speed, and looks quite promising. I'd say that we are probably still about five years away from routine clinical use. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't regulate the templars?

I love you. :D GirthSummit _(blether) 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

[14]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jim Bowler

If you want to help out with Jim Bowler, I'm happy to have your input or helping hands. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but since I'm sort of "on strike" with respect to content work, and since the topic isn't really in my wheelhouse, I'll have to say sorry for now, at least until I start feeling more positively about WP. Any of my magnificent (or otherwise!) talk page participants: please do help if you are interested! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Apparently, the Mungo Man discovery had several running controversies attached to it, and I want to make sure I represent them fairly and accurately. Thank you for your consideration. Viriditas (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing you

Yep, I do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That's sweet of you, much appreciated! (For those following, it's re: [15].) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops - there I go again...brevity screws me up - never fails. Thx for the clarity. Maybe editors will be more tolerant of my tl;dr responses, although I have improved greatly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhmmm...well, hell - I just saw Girth's "I love you." That changes everything! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing him? I didn't even know you were shooting at him. EEng 02:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just like shooting fish in a barrel! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And here's an a yarn or two to go with your idiom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Careful, it might shrink when wet. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nah - that only happens when it's cold. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Blast from the past

A couple days ago I ran into an old edit of Elvey's, and seeing as they're banned, is just making edits over it ok given that they can't reply and it's a minor issue? Creeper Ninja (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the details of what you are referring to, but WP:BEBOLD is what applies here, so I don't see why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI pban from 2016 that you acted in. Mostly wanted a second opinion here on what to do. Creeper Ninja (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fungi intelligence

Seth Shostak and Molly Bentley recently discussed fungi intelligence on their podcast with Merlin Sheldrake, author of Entangled Life. I was curious if you had given it much thought. It sounds like a topic that might interest you. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that fungi are more intelligent than Donald Trump. (See also what Stormy Daniels said about mushrooms and part of his anatomy.)

But seriously, this is a topic I haven't given any thought to previously. Obviously, this depends very much upon how one defines intelligence. With life forms that do not have nervous systems, it's got to be approached with that concept in mind. Certainly, organisms do not need nervous systems to respond to their environments: cf Plant perception (physiology) (and be careful of Plant perception (paranormal)!). Fungi can assemble into networks through which chemicals can be transferred; Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks is quite interesting in that respect. But calling that "communication" should not be taken anthropocentrically to imply language. Nor should evolution be misconstrued as intelligent design. And I think evolution, natural selection, is really what this is mostly about. Fungi, like a lot of other seemingly "simple" life forms, have evolved to take on some pretty impressive abilities to function and adapt within their environments. Whether to call that "intelligent" or just "impressive" is a matter of how one chooses to define those words. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Am I a stalker? Not sure, but I was curious, intelligence of dogs an' all that (a little foreshadowing here). Wossname never falls far from the tree, does it? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to stalk me as much as you want, Roxy. Just bark to let me know you're there. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you havn't left us completely, but I haven't been keeping up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket

I did it again! WTH is happening? I had too many tabs open in the browser while hunting diffs, got distracted, then when I came back to edit, I lost my place, and awaaay we go!! Holy moly, 2020 has been the craziest year ever! Had nothing to do with Happy Hour. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked to see the context of that, and although there's so much I could say, I'll restrict myself to the following:

1. Don't feel bad about it, it's a pretty easy mistake to make (and I trust that you really don't feel bad, just amused!).
2. Maybe Happy Hour would actually help!
3. Discussing reliable sourcing for current US politics is likely to make anyone unwell, and is contraindicated for those seeking peace of mind.
4. And as for the undeniable weirdness of 2020: Medical science has a way of being right, even when politicians find it inconvenient.
5. So wear a face covering. And other clothing, too.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Love it! I'll print it and hang it on the fridge with a magnetic frame. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been going back-and-forth in my mind about whether to say this or not, but regarding #3, it seems to me to be asking for trouble, and better just left for other people to worry about. For whatever that might, or might not, be worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There's enough room in there for back-and-forth? I've contemplated your #3, and decided the best first step and venue would be an RfC at VPP. A single key point from (1) NPOV, (2) V, and (3) RS will be stated in respective order, and the RfC question will ask if WP:RS/P is compatible with the 1, 2, 3 key points, requiring a yes or no answer for each. Pretty simple, don'cha think? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As for enough room, not to mention piece peace of mind, we both know that if I had half a mind, I'd give you a piece of it. As for the rest, I dunno. In general, an RfC is always a good way to take an issue to the community and have it settled there. I didn't look closely enough at this particular issue to be able to give you advice on how to construct an RfC, and I don't want to look at it any more than I already have. But my concern – and as always it's just a suggestion – is more along the lines of not editing at all in that topic area. It's just too toxic, and you already have people who want to take you out of it. So many other things to write about, that are so much more pleasant. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that my time is actually measured in controversial areas, and even then, the opposition still wants to take me out over the least little thing but that's WP-wide regardless of topic and I blame systemic bias for the most part. I joined Project Dogs thinking it would be fun.^Groan. Commons is typically one of my escapes from the madness but haven't been there in a while, and so is being on Bonaire, but my truck is in the shop so I've been spending more time on WP over the past few weeks creating and helping to promote articles to GA, and whatever else I do. I don't have anything ready to nominate for the grueling process of FA just yet, much less the incentive. When not on WP, I'm submerged in a Netflix marathon when I should be submerged underwater taking pictures. I just finished 8 seasons of Arrow - it's like an addiction. I've watched all the Merlin - Arthurian Legend type films, Outlanders, Anne of Green Gable (Anne with an E), Hell on Wheels, Godless, Reign, Tudors, Borgias, Medici, etc. One of the benefits of my former career that has endured over the years is my mental training to not remember movies I've seen or scripts I've written; therefore, reruns are like premiers to me. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Whereas mine is measured in seconds, minutes, and hours. But then again... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's what all the guys say. ^{[stretch] Atsme} _Talk 📧 20:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well preserved ancient neurons

May I assume you've had a chance to read this paper? I'm reminded of writer Dennis Potter and his delightful series Karaoke and Cold Lazarus. It's hard to believe that his speculative, fictional work is 24 years old. I remember watching it as if it was yesterday. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you give me more credit than I deserve! No, I wasn't aware of it. Until now, of course, so thank you very much for drawing it to my attention. Some of the images there are pretty awesome! Striking resemblances to modern-day specimens of axons. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could there be any utility to brain vitrification? Just curious, because serendipity plays quite a significant role in scientific innovation. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, not likely to be useful therapeutically. But as a research tool, especially to be able to see neuroanatomy below the surface of brains, something like it has already been in use, and found to be quite useful, since 2013. Our page on CLARITY describes it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a beautiful video about it at [16]. Talk page watchers may want to take a look; you won't be disappointed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Time cells

• Why Some Memories Seem Like Movies: 'Time Cells' Discovered In Human Brains.
• Time cells in the human hippocampus and entorhinal cortex support episodic memory

This is going to be a wild week. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How prescient of me to have started the page on Phase precession!

As for current events, I've been dreading this upcoming week, and I sure hope it ends sooner rather than later. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks delicious, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"A single cell that is not a neuron has everything you need to make a decision.”

• Popular article (2019)
• A Complex Hierarchy of Avoidance Behaviors in a Single-Cell Eukaryote (Original paper)

Any thoughts on this research and its implications for brain evolution? Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess that I would say essentially the same things as I did above at #Fungi intelligence, with Stentor (ciliate) in place of a fungus. "Everything you need to make a decision" is clearly hyperbole with respect to all the possible decisions that could ever, possibly, exist. More like everything it needs to make the kinds of stimulus-response choices that it needs to make to survive – which, admittedly, isn't nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially for something that can only reproduce asexually. No wonder the poor thing looks so horn-y. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE in the whole

Tired of elections? Me too! But this one is different:

User:Tryptofish/ACE2020

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No

Arbcom's block of Jytdog was deserved. Saying so is not "grave-dancing". Paul August ☎ 21:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we are talking about this: [17].

Thank you for coming here to discuss it with me. I don't disagree with you that ArbCom acted correctly. And I'm quite ready to agree that you said it in good faith, and did not intend it in any sort of mean-spirited way. Nor do I disagree with you over anyone's right to say it. My concern, however, is about saying it on his talk page. I could make a very, very long list of now-gone users about whom I would readily say "good riddance". But I'm not going to say that in their user space. If there were a discussion in WP space about whether or not those users should be allowed back, I would certainly feel justified in expressing my views there. But not on their talk pages, even if their wiki-friends have posted comments that, from my perspective, lack a certain NPOV. If we're going to take seriously the values of treating one another with respect, which is very much where Jytdog himself fell short, then we need to hold ourselves to that standard. Anyone who looks back at the ArbCom case of a couple of months ago, where his appeal was denied, will see me trying very hard to be fair to both "sides": [18].

I meant everything I said in my edit summary, including the high regard in which I hold Risker and you. (And I'm surprised that I haven't been reverted by anyone, yet.) And I really felt badly about making that edit. But if you look at the edit history of that talk page, you'll see what I'm talking about, and I mean it when I say that it would be wrong to revert others while not reverting the two of you. I hope very much that you will not think that I regarded your comment as having been in bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh ... But the talk page is where the discussion was taking place. Where else could I have expressed my opinion? Paul August ☎ 00:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. As Paul August says, that is where the discussion was taking place. And you left the comment by SMcCandlish untouched, even though it is in exactly the same vein. When future users come to see that discussion, they will have no good way to understand why Jytdog is no longer part of this community. That's not grave-dancing. We're giving you the chance to self-revert, rather than creating an edit war on a user talk page watched by over 500 people. Please self-revert; the community deserves to know what actually happened. There really aren't that many users who were oversight-blocked twice who got a third chance and still created problems. Risker (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand something, so let's see whether or not I understand correctly. As for whether people who come new to the talk page can see what actually happened, it's still linked very clearly at User talk:Jytdog#Block. To my knowledge, there is, at this time, no active discussion about whether or not anything should be done about ArbCom's decision (nor in my opinion is there any need for such a discussion at this time). The comments at his talk page are comments from well-wishers, and they had mostly petered out over the last few months, with nothing between April 12 and November 27. In the interim, there had been some negative comments that I and others reverted, culminating in an administrator saying that the next user to restore those comments would be blocked: [19]. Just prior to the two of you, SMcCandlish did indeed post a new comment. But his was a friendly one, beginning with a joke (yes, it's clearly a joke about what Jytdog did wrong) and then going on to say that he misses Jytdog and appreciates Jytdog's work on COI issues. (I'll leave it to him if he wants to, to expand on the MEDRS attrition to which he refers; I understood it to be about the recent ArbCom case on Medicine, possibly including DocJames' tban from drug pricing.) That's a far cry from what the two of you wrote. As for where else one could go in order to re-open discussion about the things Jytdog did wrong, I guess that depends upon how one feels about wanting to start a new discussion about it; as I said, I think it's a closed matter and no need for such a discussion has suddenly arisen.

But please let me make clear that the talk page discussion was not an active discussion questioning the validity of ArbCom's decision – nor do I question that decision. I fully get what Risker refers to, about the repeated oversight blocks and failed repeat chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My comment was in response to two comments one dated nov 27 2020, the other Nov 28 2020, so that would seem to be an "active discussion". The first comment seemed to me to amount to saying that the user in question's actions were "not that bad". I disagreed. Still don't see how that is "grave dancing". Paul August ☎ 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I understand, those two comments were the ones by SMcCandlish and by Risker, which as I said were the first comments since April. As I also said earlier, I do not in any way think that your own comment (which, for the record, was simply "Yup") was in bad faith or in a mean spirit. I'll add this: I apologize to you, as well as to Risker, for having used the phrase "grave dancing" in specific reference to your comments. I was thinking of the context of what had come before when I used it, but I apologize for repeating it in reference to the two of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to concur with Tryptofish on this. And my comment is not in the same vein as the reverted posts at all. I would like to see Jytdog eventually return, as long as it's clear that he realized what he did was a screwup and that nothing like it may happen again. My point was not to say "good riddance", it was to say "that was one a massive mistake, but if you can learn from it we could use you back, since you're among the editors who have most upheld MEDRS in our content."

PS: Yes, I was referring to DocJames, but also to CFCF, QuackGuru, and several others. A lot of them kind of imploded in the e-cigs warring, which was a case of its own, but all of them have actually been major assets in keeping FRINGE garbage out of our med articles. Their mutual conflagration in the e-cigs stuff was largely due to a major split within the medical community itself, of those opposed to e-cigs and related stuff on the basis that it's still harmful and may even be bringing youths into nicotine addition who would otherwise have escaped it, versus the camp who observe that it is less harmful that cigarette smoking and is often a successful means of escaping the latter. There have been similar debates about snus, especially in the EU.

Lots of these editorial peeps just really blew their cool in that multi-article, multi-year editorial debate, but all of them have probably learned from it and should not be treated as if permanently banned from that topic or the whole site. "Indefinite" does not mean forever on Wikipedia. All it takes is a showing that they know exactly how they screwed up, and a commitment to not doing it again, with a plausible explanation of what they intend to do differently so that it will not happen again. None of these editors, including Jytdog, are vandals, trolls, "plants" from an off-site group attempting to manipulate WP content for its own ends, etc. And Jydog's error doesn't appear to have been malicious; it was just an "very wrong venue" application of something more normal in an academic context (if you know who wrote a paper, you might write or call them at their institution to have a discussion about it among colleagues).

PPS: I do not disagree with the validity of ArbCom's decision in his case at all. It's simply not a wiki-death sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying that. I see now that I had, indeed, understood your comment as you intended it. I'll just add that I, personally, do find very serious fault with Jytdog for what he did. And as someone who spent a lot of effort over a long period of time trying to advise him to do better, I'll admit to some frustration over how he failed to really take on my advice. I'd say that his error was somewhere on the borderline between malicious and just-terribly-tone-deaf. Human beings are like that: they can be both good and bad at the same time. So I'm not disputing the substance of what Risker and Paul August said. (I've just wasted a lot of time looking for earlier discussions to link back to, and I decided to just leave it at this.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note: I did this: [20] (un-archiving). I hope that it will help with the concerns about having a clear record. I think this is better than editorializing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed a statement I made as gravedancing too. Here's my concern. The talk page looks a lot to me like a gathering spot to encourage him to come back and have many people talk about why the ban should be lifted. I have no issue with this, but do not understand why this should be one sided. I was also aggressively harassed and attacked by Jytdog. I had no involvement in the arb proceeding, but very much would have if I had known about it. I think I am far from the only one like this. Is there some way we can be notified if he makes yet another attempt for a ban lift? As I said, he semi-permanently drove me away from active editing with nasty behavior that closely followed his behavior toward others. Given the Arb pages clearly say they are closed, I don't see how I can do this other than on the talk page. Or to put all of this another way, the talk page, as it stands now, is heavily a central advocacy page for the return of someone who was exceptionally nasty to me and many others, and who wants to come back. I don't have a desire to just say negative things about him, but I do think it is unfair that only one side of a recurring issue (should Jytdog be unbanned?) get a spot to make their case that is linked to the username.Declanscottp (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped that this issue was behind me. I won't repeat myself, but you can see my thinking above, in what I already said. Let me suggest that you put his talk page on your watchlist, and set your user preferences so that you get an email when any page you watch gets edited (or alternatively log in and check your watchlist more frequently than at multi-month intervals). You may also want to watch WP:RfAR, where public requests for changes to ArbCom decisions get posted. Beyond that, there's not really a personal notification system.

It's not true that his talk page functions as a locus for advocacy on his behalf, because nothing posted there has any effect on any sort of decision-making process. No matter what people post there, those posts do nothing to get his ban lifted. It's just people commenting as well-wishers. Therefore, there is no need of any sort for you or anyone else to come there and provide advocacy for another point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IBAN expertise

Hello Tryptofish, I hope you are doing well. You gave me advice about IBANs in the past, is that something you would be willing to discuss by email? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to help, but I do not normally use email in relation to Wikipedia (as an extra precaution for privacy). So I'm sorry that I will not be able to help you via email. However, if you can describe your question(s) in a sufficiently general way that you do not run afoul of anything and do not reveal any sort of personal information, I would be happy to try and answer you here. In case this helps, asking questions about what is or is not permitted under the terms of an IBAN, and asking advice about how to appeal an IBAN, is permitted on-wiki, so long as you do not identify, make it easy to identify, or comment upon the other account.

As some purely general comments, made without knowing whether or not any of this might be relevant to what you might ask me about, here is some advice about what makes for a successful, or unsuccessful, appeal. Never use the argument that something wasn't actually your fault – even if you sincerely believe that it wasn't your fault. Accept the premise of the IBAN as fair, and make the case that what was previously a problem will no longer be a problem going forward. In my experience, a lot of editors chafe at what I just said, but it's my sincere advice to anyone who might find themselves in such a situation. Back it up with evidence of good, trouble-free editing over a period of time, and a promise to avoid any problematic topic areas.

I have no idea whether or not any of that was relevant to what you were going to ask me, but if someone were to ask me about that kind of thing I would say the same over email as what I just said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. That's similar to what I've been told,[21][22] but I haven't found my question to be precisely answered. I understand that the community just doesn't want to hear about this anymore, but I feel this must be relitigated if that's possible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the two links you gave me. If (emphasis: if) you believe that the other editor is following you around and making it difficult for you to obey your restriction, in spite of your own effort to avoid any crossing of paths, and you can convincingly back it up with diffs, you have every right to ask that the IBAN be made 2-way instead of 1-way. But that will not get the 1-way lifted. Beyond that, I'm not seeing a way for you to successfully appeal, and an unsuccessful appeal attempt would be likely to backfire against you.

I know that must be a disappointing answer. And I can understand how you feel that the community is failing to really hear what you are saying. Maybe I'm failing to see what's really going on, too. But I've been around this project long enough to know that, once numerous admins have reached a conclusion, this has become an argument that you cannot win. Wikipedia is frequently unfair.

But here's what I consider to be the good news (such as it is). It's only a bleeping website. It's not worth caring about clearing your "good name". Heck, you can tell yourself that it's Wikipedia's loss, not yours. Assuming there's still stuff you would enjoy editing about, within the confines of the IBAN, go for it, and don't look back. If you look over my own user page and talk page, you can see that I've been letting some stuff go, in my own ways (which may not be your ways, of course). But don't try to win fights that you cannot win. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI. [23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note to self (1)

The Wikipedia Pissoff Award

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every Wikipedia user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Wikipedia Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone?

On a more serious note, and in the context of what I say currently at User:Tryptofish, I've been noticing a pattern on my watchlist, and I'm curious if anyone else is observing it too. Even though I'm not really editing mainspace articles lately, I've still got lots of them on my watchlist. And lately, the entries on my watchlist are increasing edits to articles made by bots, doing gnomish corrections. Fewer major content edits made by editors, more series of automated fixes by bots.

Anyone else thinking this, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed this a bit, though I'm definitely one that mostly just checks my watchlist now and doesn't go out of my way for doing major edits right now. n=1, but in my case, I'm computered out by the end of the day now that if I'm going to spend any more time on it, it won't be anything involving text at least. I'm more likely to shut it down earlier in the day than I used to though. I wonder if it's similar fatigue across the board. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I'm glad to see you back and I hope you continue to feel better in re Covid. But yes, there could certainly be any number of reasons for editing fatigue on the part of multiple editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Actual builders of non-trivial content have largely been driven from Wikipedia. There is a still a bit of non-trivial content building, but for the most part it needs to be done by stealth. Posturing in the gathering darkness is the main approved activity. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are 676 stubs, 1845 start and 986 C-B-possible Good class articles for a total of 3507 articles in the AfC queue at this moment with 1935 sitting in the NPP queue. We have several highly proficient editors working AfC/NPP. According to Special:Statistics we currently have 125,639 active users, and 40,645,602 registered users. I don't know how that compares to other time periods. Atsme 💬 📧 11:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need more information before statistics like that clarify anything. For example, the average time spent in queue, as well as objective measures of triviality. I don't know how you measure triviality, or even what I mean by it apart from things I personally find tedious. Maybe non-trivial topics tend to be picked over first. Then again, maybe non-trivial topics are too inflammatory to be mentioned at all. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree - when a redirect is removed the article ends up in the queue. Recently, there was a one-sentence stub being discussed relative to delete or not delete (can't remember where I saw the discussion, possibly AN) but it was kept hoping others would expand it into an article. The problem is that we don't have enough "others" who are chomping at the bit to expand stubs created by other people, especially if they're not interested in the topic. Articles on WP get created because (a) the author has an interest in the topic, (b) it's a school assignment, or (c) the author is getting paid to do it. Feel free to add whatever else you believe motivates the creation of new articles. Atsme 💬 📧 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the further observations, both of you. One issue that occurs to me is that I think that en-Wiki is moving from having previously needed lots of new pages, to where that need (while never gone) is less than the need for building existing content of low quality or preliminary development into high quality and fully developed content. That's something that new pages won't capture (by design).

I have around 1K pages on my watchlist, and I long ago stopped looking at every new watchlist entry, instead going and paying close attention whenever it looked interesting to me. But for most of the, let's say, past decade, that has always meant deciding daily that someone's extensive work on a given page today is probably not in need of my attention, while there would be just the occasional occurrence of a bot doing something bot-ish. But over the past few months, I'm pretty sure that I'm just not seeing that much in the way of people adding new sections to existing pages, outside of what look like student edits or paid edits. (The perennial dramas over user conduct and policy revisions in WP-space are unabated.) But I'm seeing very large quantities of edits by bots, doing stuff like changing "accessdate" to "access-date" in citation templates (something readers will never really benefit from, unless there's some long-term benefit to page-loading time, which I doubt will be all that significant). Maybe there are some new ways that editors can tell a bot to make a particular kind of check on a selected category of pages, and that's driving the increase. But I don't think it's just an increase in the number of bot edits, superimposed on roughly the same number of serious content edits as before. I think it's an actual trend that is shifting away from substantial content editing. If I'm right about that, and if the trend continues, it's a bad sign. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The obvious "yes", but more importantly, it appears that there was a trigger to make us simultaneously notice this recently. I think that there has been a recent jump in robots making unneeded and sometimes bad-idea format changes. It looks like monkbot may be a big culprit there.North8000 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think JS Wiki Browser is considered a bot, is it? It allows for a form of automated editing (or maybe it's more like mass editing) and it's mostly wikignoming type edits which can also cause an inadvertent f-up or two from time to time, or worse if one is not careful. It could also be that the newness of WP has worn-off, not to mention the lack of proper damage control within which leaves us without. It's anybody's guess, I guess. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the observations. I actually don't mind if there are more bot edits and bot-like edits, per se, but the issue is that they are accompanied by fewer significant content edits.

Out of curiosity, I just went through my own watchlist for the past 7 days, omitting userspace edits. Of all the other edits there, here is the breakdown:

OAbot: 38 edits

Monkbot: 26

Sporkbot: 4

Various bots that archive stuff: 6

Other bots (excluding reverts by bots): 8

Reverts (whether by editors or by bots): 22

WP: (and WT:) space edits: 19

Edits by IP editors to articles or article talk pages: 10

Edits (excluding reverts) by registered editors to articles or article talk pages: 31

Of the above 31 edits by editors, those that were marked "minor" or were indicated by the edit summary as routine and not really about significant content improvement (ie, spelling correction): 19 (that leaves 12).

I expected to see a lot by OAbot and Monkbot, and to see a pretty large number of edits by registered editors in WP: space. But the large number of reverts surprised me. And it's really striking, from my perspective, how low the proportion is for editors doing non-routine edits to articles or substantive comments on article talk pages. Putting that another way, it sure looks like the major activities (by numbers of recent edits, in one fish's idiosyncratic watchlist) are minor gnomish work, minor gnomish work by bots, reverting stuff, and discussions in WP: space. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO there are probably many reasons for that (besides your selections for your watch list.) Some are naturally due to Wikipedia maturing, other are due to Wikipedia problems. The political articles have gotten so hopelessly biased, written off by the general public and dangerous for people with the "wrong" viewpoints to edit that that area which does need ongoing and new work is somewhat abandoned by good editors. Next there are many barriers to entry, making it too much trouble for the most-needed folks (experts in the fields) to bother with. First, policies and guidelines are a weird alternate universe that needs to be learned, including the hundreds of obscure ones that somebody is going to jump them with. Next, Wikipedia is a nasty and vicious place. To give an idea, things like wp:civility are the tools for clever warfare, not ways to avoid it. Finally it's getting more and more complex to edit. WWF answer was to dumb-down the already-easy part, while the other 98% gets ever more complex. The good news is that I think that 3-5 smart active editors working together could fix nearly anything in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are spot-on with that, especially (alas) the fact of it becoming "a nasty and vicious place". Although 3–5 smart editors can indeed fix any one problem – at least until they run up against some others who try their patience – there is no way they can fix every problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What I had most in mind is fixing policies and guidelines, which would reduce a whole lot of other problems. And I course, I didn't mean that they could find the time to fix 100 problems, just any 1 or 2 at a time. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, as I was assuming it was about page edits. But the problem with fixing policies and guidelines in any significant way is that ≤5 editors will not be a functional consensus. And what policy says and what happens when there is a dispute are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:, I know all of the but still stand by my assertion. 3-5 smart editors working together (which never really happens in Wikipedia) can get any policy or guideline fixed. Of course, it also has to be a good idea. They work out the details (and settle their differences then) and all agree to actively support exactly whatever they arrived at. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Would these problems be easier to deal with if like Levivich said, administrators were merely an "implement of consensus"?[24] We have to do something before this place be becomes like the Dead Sea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think not. If anything, I'd like to see admins do more in terms of using discretion. (For example, we have too many "bright line" blocks.) As I just replied to North, getting consensus about policy is often the place where toxicity reigns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This year passed slower than Christmas!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme! This year passed slower than molasses, and was far stickier (and ickier) too. Here's to a much happier new year! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, Donner! (By the way, you got a Christmas-y plug on the NPR Sunday Puzzle: See the answer to "Last week's challenge".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I reluctantly admit that many years ago, perhaps as far back as my youth, I thought "Donder" was "Donner." I think that some people still use "Donner." In retrospect, I wonder whether a version of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" (Gene Autry?) had something to do with that. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Seriously - I don’t understand it. Please stop bringing them up. They can’t respond, they definitely see it, and it certainly doesn’t help anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand it. And you clearly don't understand. At all.

What we are talking about here is about my posting this: [25].

So, let's have a little poll!

How many people here think that what I wrote was:

(a) an attack on SashiRolls, or

(b) an extended comment at WP:ARCA, in which I expressed sympathy for O3000 and gave advice to El C, and called for less "bright-line" administrative action, and more attention to BLP in mainspace content, and for editors to just generally treat one another with more kindness?

Mr Ernie then replied to me with this: [26]. How many people think that:

(c) Mr Ernie was right that my comment "had no obvious reason or point", or

(d) Mr Ernie made a personal attack on me, and contributed nothing in that comment to the ARCA discussion that was ongoing?

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think what you wrote was an attack, but I agree it's not terribly obvious why you're bringing up another situation without providing greater context on how it applies to the current one. Without this, it just feels like a "trust me, I think you should do something else for this situation, just like another time where the initial response got modified later". Personally, I wouldn't have written this reply as a comment in the clarification and amendment request, because I don't think the arbitrators need my view on this matter. Either they'll infer some additional context and gain more insight, or they won't. (Essentially it's not very important whether or not it seems obvious to me.) isaacl (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, isaacl, for looking at this from both sides. I'll certainly admit to being as prone as anyone else to sometimes failing to realize that what may be self-evident to me might not be self-evident to others, and it's helpful that you have drawn my attention to that here. The context in which I wrote the comment was that some of the Arbs were saying that they probably would not take formal action, in part because of what El C had been posting about what he was prepared to do. Therefore, my comment was in part to say that I think that El C should do those things he was considering, to give him more reasons to do so, and to encourage the Arbs to let it go at that. (I've pinged El C because I'm mentioning him, although he need not necessarily reply, but I just feel that he should be aware.) In terms of giving him those "more reasons", I think that his reply to me, [27], indicates that he understood what I was getting at, and agreed in some parts and disagreed in others, which is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And I think this is worth noting in that regard: [28]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking it over more, the grave-dancing comment wasn't necessary and I'll strike that. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Mr Ernie, I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: It looks like this is a new and troubled editor who has been indeffed since posting this message to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on now, Trypto, surely you could manage a teeny-weeny new article, it's not brain surgery, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha! I just saw the corresponding section on your talk page, which is undeniably prettier than what I have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like Rushin' hacking to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, just like in the good old days. **sob**. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And now I need some brain surgery, so I can un-see that link! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen the latest or watch True Facts at all

Wish I had thought of this approach back in the day!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful to look at, indeed. Are there Untrue Facts? (Don't answer that!) I don't know what you mean by "this approach". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha! By "this approach", I was referring to raw humor vs the stuffy PBS academic-style I was forced to use, not to mention various other broadcast restrictions. A few editors/producers toyed a bit with humor in the studio (off-the-clock) and we did some crazy stuff, not unlike the F-word piece with its NPR style, but we dared not go astray, at least not to the extent of True Facts. Commercial network programming was different, but back then, I had my own studio and called the shots. For fun, we'd put together shorts with nothing but out-takes or "bloopers" of Bill Dance (my fav), Jimmy Houston, Robin Williams(the genius), and even some of my own Water Sports Weekly shows - boy, did we have bloopers! I was also writing a humorous short story series for Bass'n Gal magazine & In Fisherman but it was a time when women were just beginning to break the stereotypical mold of the Stepford wife who dared not venture into a man's sports world. With the advent of digital broadcasting/recording, plus the www, everything changed. Doors flew open to unlimited possibilities, but of late, some of those doors have been slammed shut, particularly in light of recent censorship activities by the Big Tech 3 (Twitter, FB & YouTube/Google) - not saying that some wasn't necessary. Speech (text) is now being patrolled by thought police - it's happening here on WP - and it can be daunting at times; the liberal arts aren't quite as liberal as they used to be...at least, not in certain areas. I'm predicting here now so, mark my words, if you'd like, but I foresee the move toward decentralization as the way of the future, and it will bring big change from the way we're accustomed to doing things now. Are you familiar with Urbit? Atsme 💬 📧 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That bloopers reel is hilarious (lucky for fish like me)! And Bass'n Gal may be the best name I've ever heard for a magazine. As for me, I have made it a life-long rule for myself to stay off – completely – all social media sites. I may not have much sanity left, but I want to preserve what little I still have. (Also in that vein, I'm not commenting about what you said about thought police etc., OK?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No pressure about responding to all of my comments - be happy. I have some extra pills if you need some - Ibdonewithol (500mg) and Amnotanazitol (50-500mg). Sorry, but I ran out of the Trimyazagain Uprick (30mg) and have to get a refill, maybe a stronger dose, but I don't think they would be a good option for you right now, anyway. Atsme 💬 📧 12:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New essay

I've started User:Tryptofish/Two wrongs don't make a right, still in the draft stage. Revisions, advice, suggestions, all welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Damn SpellChecker didn't catch it!! I can't believe I did that...OMG! I was up at 3:00 am, which goes to prove that by the time I started tweaking, it was actually time for me to take a nap. Atsme 💬 📧 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about "principal" and "principle". In any case, no worries, and thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved now to WP: space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Wikimarkup wisdom

Hi there Tryptofish, once upon a time I saw you pull off what seemed to me a feat of wikimarkup wizardry that I'm still not sure I understand. Now I've got a similar wikimarkup problem that I'm wondering if you can easily solve (or just as valuable, let me know if it's unsolvable): I've been writing a newsletter for WikiProject Medicine that includes side-by-side boxes listing FA/GAs that have been promoted and are being reviewed (example). My dream is for those boxes to appear the same height and vertically aligned, even when they contain different amounts of text. The sad way I do that now is by adding as many <br> as it takes to get the two to be the same height on my screen. But of course on narrower and wider screens they get out of alignment. Do you know of a superior way to set this up? Any thoughts/guidance would be much appreciated. More importantly I hope you're keeping well. All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keeping well, and I hope you are too. Here's how I do it:

Example1 line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line1line 1line1line1line1line1line1line1

Example2 line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2 line2line2line2line2line2line2line2line2

Obviously, you should go to the edit window to see the markup, which you can just copy, and substitute the real text for the placeholder terms. The idea is basically to use the "quote frame" template within a table. I've used it in multiple places (because I often find it useful to discuss stuff side-by-side), and it seems to work pretty consistently for me. As for vertically aligning texts of different amounts, you can see that this uses the "vertical-align: top" style, so it should do that, but I'm not confident that this will really happen if the two sides are very different. (I don't know if there's a way to apply that style across the entire table. Any talk page watchers with advice on that?) I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I typically consult RexxS who has a huge bag of tricks, and he's a luau expert, or maybe it's lua - I can't remember. I also recently found the user page of Timeshifter who has all the appearances of a table magician; not that he does tricks on a table...but you know what I mean. Atsme 💬 📧 23:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino and Atsme: The problem with tables is that they eventually produce horizontal scroll-bars when the window gets narrow (e.g. on mobile devices). If you want to maximise accessibility for screen readers as well as allow the two boxes to sit side-by-side on wide screens while moving one-under-the-other on narrow screens, you need something like this:

Newly recognized content

• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet
• UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

Nominated for review

• Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell
  
• Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25
  
• Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa
  
• Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48
  
• Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4
  
• Urinothorax nom. Steve M.
  
• Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet
  
• Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate.
  
• Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk.
  
• Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

I could create a template to hide all the css styling if you would like, but the <div>...</div> tags don't actually cause problems and they help interested editors to learn about the markup. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The way that looks on my display is that the two boxes are one above the other, not side-by-side. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's how it should look on a display that's not wide enough to display the two boxes at their default width. It happens around a window width of 1300px. If you want to keep them side-by-side at the expense of having lines wrap inside the boxes, you can set a width for each box:

Newly recognized content

• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet
• UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

Nominated for review

• Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell
  
• Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25
  
• Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa
  
• Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48
  
• Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4
  
• Urinothorax nom. Steve M.
  
• Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet
  
• Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate.
  
• Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk.
  
• Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk.
  
• Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

You might have to jigger with that depending on the content, though. A width of 29em allows side-by-side down to about 1000px window width. --RexxS (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. Ajpolino, I hope there's something within these options that works for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you both very much. Lord knows how long it would've taken me to sort this out on my own. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Change is on the horizon

I'll leave this little WMF tidbit in case you haven't seen it. There are also changes proposed for the number of community board members and how they are elected. Oh, and here's the new Code of Conduct policy. Here's a little brain teaser - does our usage of the term virtual reality affect how we use virtually everything? 🤔

Hi Atsme. I actually had seen all of those things already, and decided that I probably don't care much about any of them. And I'll settle for some virtuous reality, of which I see all too little.

On a more serious note, I've been seeing a lot of news about horrid weather conditions in Texas. I hope that all is well at your ranch. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What a mess they had to deal with in Texas!! Frozen water buckets...sub-zero temps...snow...not what we're accustomed to in the big state. I do feel a little guilty being here and not there to help, but I'd probably just be pushed out of the way, so it makes no difference. This is the time of year babies are born - two new foals have already hit the ground. My granddaughter is doing well at OSU as a member of their Equestrian Team (she's there on a scholarship) - very proud of her. She's in the early studies working toward a medical career. What a surprise. I thought she'd be going into chemistry, but I guess she'll have her share of that, too. Anyway, relative to me going back to Texas, I prefer to not increase my risks. Here on Bonaire we had fewer than 5 cases until they allowed more European visitors in, and now that number has increased. Add to that, the corruption throughout the Caribbean, and well...it's sad. Sunshine does wonders for one's health and state of mind. I've got a boat load of new pictures to upload and that's keeping me busy along with my work at OTRS, NPP training, NPP/AfC reviewing, etc. I'm just happy to know they weathered the storm in Texas, and that the ranch is still in one piece. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad for you that it isn't any worse than that, and I'm glad that the ranch is still in one piece. Three cheers for sunshine! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin Abuse cases

I have a general point I'd like to float by you. You wrote at ARC There's a danger here, that ArbCom is becoming somewhere where an editor who has a gripe with an admin and who can come up with some bad-temper diffs can come to RfAr and the Committee will take the attitude that there is "a low bar" for admin abuse cases, and once the case is accepted, the outcome is predetermined. I think you identify the right tension but come to the opposite conclusion as me. If ArbCom accepts cases where there might be no evidence of anything wrong then some of the time it should come up with a final decision of "nothing to see here folks". If, on the other hand, it requires a fair amount of evidence that something is wrong, it would be amazing if cases didn't end with some sort of sanction (if only a reprimand or the like). So if the committee actually acts on the premise that there is a low bar for admin abuse cases that should be, in my view, the opposite of the idea that once a case is accepted the outcome is predetermined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that with me here, that's nice of you to reach out that way. If we come to opposite conclusions, then so be it. But I actually think that a good outcome of my comment would be that if ArbCom – not just you individually, but the whole Committee – would be persuaded that if you do take the case you will do something along the lines of what some other editors have commented on, on the case request page: to mediate/arbitrate between the two aggrieved parties, as opposed to issuing a desysop.

It's such a complicated issue with admin abuse cases: I actually found myself thinking that the community process that TonyB initiated could end up being a "nicer" alternative to ArbCom, which led quickly to my having cognitive dissonance. En-wiki has swung very far from where it was, when I worked on a failed proposal for community desysops eleven years ago. Back then, I felt like ArbCom was ineffectual in dealing with admins who had passed RfA when RfA was comparatively trivial. Now, the community treats RfA much differently, and ArbCom has become much more effective.

In any case, I still hope you all decline, but if you accept, I hope you do it with a light hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, if I vote to accept the case, it will be for what Thrydulf said: I think it's clear that the specific dispute between RexxS and ProcrastinatingReader (PR) is at best premature and, on it's own, does not require ArbCom's involvement. That is not what ArbCom is being asked to investigate though, it is being asked to investigate a long-standing pattern of behaviour of which the dispute involving PR is simply the latest (and not most egregious) example. I think you (and Ritchie) are right that this GS template situation just needs some mediation and my suggestion that Ritchie be the one to do it was sincere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you were the filing party in the Medicine case, and if this is going to become Medicine2, I might just ask you to recuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say it will be Medicine 2? I don't see a sprawl across the topic area. If it's accepted it will be about looking at a single administrator's conduct. That editor happens to edit in Medicine, but even at the height of my medicine admin work I was not doing any work outside of MEDPRICES. But I'm intrigued by your thoughts that I shouldn't arbitrate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If this goes back beyond the template, and it's focused only on RexxS's conduct as an admin (so as, officially, not to be Medicine2), then it's going to become a matter of his interactions with other editors who were parties in the Medicine case, a lot of it recently having been about WT:MEDMOS, which is the same venue as the price dispute was about, and which rehashes the same grievances that underlay the pricing dispute. (I've been quietly watching that, without getting involved, so I've been seeing what has been going on there, and it looks to me like PR's diffs come from there.) Based upon how you interacted with me in that area, and based upon how you interacted with other parties during the case, I do not believe that you can approach RexxS's conduct in an uninvolved way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well this shows that I have not been following that at all because I had no idea that there was any acrimony going on. So far the diffs entered (Joe Roe brought the most) have touched on medical topics but not MEDPRICES. Med topics are to be expected when there is question about INOVLVED with Rexx. Anyhow I will keep this in mind as things progress. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything ongoing about prices. What I meant was that the same interpersonal grievances are at play. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And I meant to write MEDMOS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

pattern of behaviour

The issue isn't how many discussions can be used to establish a pattern of evidence, but that the proposed procedure for initiating a review of the administrator's behaviour requires a discussion that was closed indicating the administrator behaved inappropriately. That can be challenging for certain types of behaviour that have strong supporters, or if many people support the same point of view held by the person in question. If we had a better way to deal with content disputes, the incentive to behave aggressively would be considerably reduced. But we don't, and so here we are. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I think that this is a very useful discussion nonetheless, and I'm working (just in my own head, for the moment, not ready for prime time) on another direction that we could take it in. I feel like it may be something quite good (how's that for a tease?). Maybe I'll bring it up there (for those playing along at home, we're talking about the desysop policy RfC that's on everyone's watchlist notices, specifically a comment near the end of the oppose section), and/or maybe as part of the ArbCom case about a specific admin, that is going on right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I started to toy with the idea of trying to track patterns of behaviour on pages visible only to admins, mirroring what would happen in a real-world organization, but I think it would face strong opposition. I'm more interested in fostering collaborative behaviour aspect, in any case. But I suspect something will have to happen to first break the stalemate imposed by consensus-based decision making. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat entertaining

Well, at least I found it to be so, primarily because that fish can grow to be 6+ ft. Atsme 💬 📧 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I bet that's what it tells all the female fish!

But seriously, that's some atrociously irresponsible fishkeeping. Did that thing actually eat the arowana? And adding redtail catfishes? Anyone who keeps animals as pets has responsibilities. And putting a fish that will grow to six feet in a tank two feet long, along with other fish that will fit in its mouth, is nothing to be proud of. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. What got my interest was a recent comment at the Alligator gar: Predator or Prey page on YouTube. I remember when I produced that program, the curator of the Dallas Aquarium mentioned how expensive they are to keep because they primarily eat other fish but they'll eat other prey, too, like water fowl, turtles, small stuff. So now we have the public raising them in personal aquariums - and when they get too big, guess where they go? Typically, they're dumped into the closest lake. Kids who get pet baby alligators do the same thing - it's insane. I think the person in that video uses the goldfish as food or as a snack to go with the pelleted food. Atsme 💬 📧 00:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And introducing them into the wild as invasive species... Facepalm. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances

Not sure what you mean by extenuating circumstances (though I suspect as Levivich alluded to, COVID-19 probably made administrators more forgiving in simply closing the incidents noticeboard thread). The two disagreed in the categories for discussion thread, which likely spilled over into the dispute on talk page formatting.

I hope your change of heart does not centre on my evidence; I just wanted to give more context to the noticeboard thread as I was concerned no one would examine the actual technical impact of the edits (as many in the thread did not). isaacl (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then let me make this very clear. Yes, it centers entirely on your evidence, which I find devastating. Talk about burying the lead – all the evidence prior to yours seemed to me to point the other way. But the issue here is the extreme edit warring. If I were "in charge", that would be, all by itself, immediate grounds for desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Logging out now. I need to sleep on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Conventions for discussion thread formatting

Regarding this edit: as unsolicited advice, please feel free to ignore the following, particularly if you're already aware of it. You responded to a comment that started with * with a comment that started with ::, immediately following a comment that started with *::::::. The first comment started a first-level bulleted list. Your reply changed the first-level list to an unbulleted one, and nested a second-level unbulleted list item below it. This causes screen readers to announce the closing of seven list levels (from the comment before your reply) and the opening of two list levels.

To avoid unnecessary additional overhead for those using screen readers, and under some circumstances (depending on how the list nesting gets altered midstream) to prevent a more verbose output for those using the visual diff option, you can follow the conventions described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists. RexxS has a essay, Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, and I have my own, User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup, that also cover this. In a nutshell: use the same prefix as the comment to which you're replying, and then add the character of your choice to it. In this case, this means using a prefix of *:. This would have limited the announcements to the closing of five list levels, with no added opening list announcements. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I learned something from this. I'm going to blue-link to screen reader because, although it's something that I was vaguely aware of, I wasn't really actively aware of it. And I want to be very friendly to readers who depend upon assistive technology, because it's the right thing to do. (Actually, I've long wondered about it, when I see someone making those kinds of corrections, and I'll admit to thinking, ignorantly, that this must be people with too much time on their hands. Stuff like "list announcements" means nothing to those of us who don't think in html: does that have something to do with mailing lists? wink wink. And in this specific example, I actually was just following the edit that was immediately above my own.) When I think of it, I'll try to remember the right way to do it, although I'm quick to add that I'll probably forget a lot of the time. In which case, gnomish editors, thank you, and I'll try not to think snarky things about you in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine many editors think of colons as indent levels/tab stops (in old typewriter terms). A common thing I've seen is editors replying to a comment prefixed with something like *** with a comment prefixed with something like :::*. Presumably they are thinking "I want to match the indent level of the previous comment, and then add a bulleted item". I started also mentioning the problem with visual diffs now, as I'm guessing that might resonate with a (very?) slightly larger audience. (For the edit I linked to, the edit immediately above yours had a prefix of *::::::; there are other cases however where you were indeed following a comment that had been the first to change the first character in the prefix.)

I was more reluctant to make these kind of changes in the past, but after convincing myself that for the cases where the comments were placed at the correct nesting level but just needlessly changed the list types, it made no discernable visual difference (other than changing weird-looking hanging bullets into ones with the usual spacing), I do them more often. I'm still cautious about cases where list levels are skipped, because changing it will affect the horizontal layout, and sometimes editors do it when interjecting before an earlier response, ignoring the conventional approach of replying at the end and not jumping ahead of earlier responders.

As I understand it, browsing with a screen reader is a dramatically different experience. The users speed up the playback and key off small cues to figure out where to jump to next. I had a discussion with one editor where I talked about the best practice of having meaningful link text instead of "click here", as some users depend on going through links quickly based on the announced link text, and the response was that they should learn not to do that. Having an accessible site, particularly when the vast majority of editors (including me) have very little knowledge of the browsing experience for those with accessibility needs, is hard. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually a lot less sympathetic to issues with the Visual Editor, because no one has to use it, and the developers should be responsible for fixing stuff like that instead of expecting editors to compensate for its shortcomings. But making the site accessible for those with disabilities is something I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't use the Visual Editor to edit, but I regularly use both text and visual diffs. I find the visual diff output easier to read (when it isn't highlighting pseudo-changes caused by unnecessary changes in list styles) and often provides better surrounding context. The problem with unnecessary changes in list styles can't really be fixed by developers, because just like screen readers, it can't tell if you actually meant to change list styles for some reason, or if you're just treating all of the prefix characters as indents. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I forgot I mentioned the case of interjected comments in this thread. You mentioned not understanding the issue on a technical level; do you have some additional questions that I might help clarify? isaacl (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply here, and for your reply at EEng's talk page. No, I really don't have any further questions. It's more like: (a) I don't really care that much about technical stuff, (b) I already understand the basic reasons, and (c) I wanted to sound interested but neutral in the debate, and ignorance is always a convenient excuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Input, please

I'm of the mind that you are more attuned to collegiate/scholarly matters on a much broader scale than I (the beach vs a sand castle),^[stretch] and would very much appreciate your input about this program. My namesake (granddaughter) is graduating early with great reviews from her teachers, and is now contemplating that program. I am much too close to the subject to judge fairly. Atsme 💬 📧 16:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to help with this, and I'd like to offer a few initial impressions, and then I want you to follow up with more questions to me. I'm asking for that further discussion largely because I can see a lot of different possible directions this discussion could take, and I want your guidance towards the parts that are actually relevant to what you want to find out about.

One part is whether to use this program, or to use other programs for gap years. I see from their website that they say that students can get college credits for what they do in the program. That actually depends on the college, as it's up to them. So your granddaughter should think about some of the colleges/universities she might want to apply to, and look into their policies for giving course credit for stuff like that. But don't just take the company's word for it.

I otherwise didn't see any obvious red flags about this particular company, and a superficial look seems to indicate a lot of positive online reviews.

Another part, and it's an important one, is whether or not to do a gap year (regardless of how to do it). There's no right or wrong answer there. It depends on the young person, and their interests, and their possible benefit from a year spent figuring out those interests. What is she interested in, academically and perhaps professionally? What does she want to get out of the experience of a year of traveling? Gap years and traveling are becoming (have become?) very popular with young people, and they are often very successful and worthwhile. But everyone is an individual, and it's obviously not one-size-fits-all.

Does she have any colleges in mind she wants to apply to? Does she have any major(s) in mind? Does she have any specific interests in another part of the world? Does she have specific questions about her future that she wants to figure out?

And what would be the pluses and minuses of doing a gap year where the travel and the rest is set up by the family, instead of buying a package commercially?

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryp. I'm going to send her the link to this page so she can follow along, and ask me questions to ask you. Atsme 💬 📧 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

All good! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your ears must be burning because I just now finished discussing what you said and here is her response in a nutshell:

She is currently thinking about a career as an x-ray technician but she also wants to take business management thinking it may lead to other opportunities. (She's neither pro nor con gap years and realizes the tendency to not complete one's schooling when study is not contiguous.) She has no particular college or university in mind at this point, primarily because she has not had an opportunity to discuss that topic with her HS counselor, and is unaware of her options. The benefits she sees in the proposed program is that it affords her exposure to new experiences, and an opportunity to explore different cultures in a country much different from her own. She also believes it will help make her more aware of business opportunities, available internships, etc.

They say dolphins communicate that way. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 18:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dolphins? I must have done that on porpoise. (Sorry, that was awful!) Two thoughts: One is for her to not get too worried about failing to complete schooling. Gap years and the like are very common, and each individual controls their own ability to follow-through. If she wants to continue, she will continue.

The other is that I think this is an excellent topic for her to discuss with her guidance counselor. Unless there are any questions for me that cannot wait til then, my suggestion is to wait until that meeting has happened, and then follow-up here after that. I expect that it will be helpful in focusing what to evaluate next. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Clever - I spewed my drink as I was reading your first 2 sentences - luckily no damage to the keyboard. I do agree that she needs to consult with her counselors first, and go from there. My primary interest was how the gap programs work, but I feel a little better now after your input. The adventure she's talking about (Thailand with an adult leader overseeing a small group) will provide some college credits, and give her some experience in another part of the world. To be continued. Atsme 💬 📧 19:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to repeat what I said earlier, that whether a given college actually accepts it as credits depends on the college, and not on what the (for-profit) company says. I have two Harvard classmates (thus equally as ancient as I am) who went to Thailand between high school and college and found it very worthwhile (one is an attorney, the other a physician). I could get in touch with them if that were to be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry... JBW (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: As much as it would be entertaining to block multiple Arbs, please don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For those playing along at home: [29], [30]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I be the race car? .. lol. Seriously though - I saw where you restored a post and was thrown for a second thinking you posted using another users sig. My mind was jumped into overdrive on that one. — Ched (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL! I dunno, being a car might give you gas. That's actually the second time in less than 24 hours that I made that kind of edit, the first being the one that JBW posted to me about just above, although this time I restored someone else's comment instead of my own. It might not be gas, but there sure is something that is becoming absolutely rampant around here: too many otherwise reasonable people getting so, so very upset about stuff that it feels like everyone is about to bust an axle. Everyone needs to calm the F down, and when they don't, it becomes contagious. I've been informally keeping track of whether or not, each day when I log in here, I see something (without going out of my way to look for it) where someone is either getting very upset, or getting into trouble, or creating a situation where it makes me feel upset, and I can say that there have been ZERO days for over a month when I've logged in and everything is peaceful. It's like Wikipedia is the bottomless well that just keeps on giving. I'm truly not seeing a way out of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

And now, [31], but I won't dare touch that one, because I don't want to be a rotten Tryptofish! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting: Today, I haven't seen anything that is negative in the way that I just described above. Literally, the first time in recent memory. Maybe it's an early omen of April Fools Day tomorrow. (Which I'm sure will summon forth the annual indignation of the humor-challenged.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

... and also for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This?

Even fish practice hygiene. — Ched (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I got you some extra. That really made me laugh .. literally out loud — Ched (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! (In re this: [32].) That's what I'm here for: stinking up Wikipedia! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is that Old Spice container a little too phallic-looking? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOL ... only you would find that. — Ched (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC) well ... now that I look again ... — Ched (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Help! Help! Ched is sexually harassing me! My new personal pronoun is now... oh, nevermind! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha

... of course piscine odors distinct from tryptic ones were meant :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I may need something stronger, after all the anger around this place today. You had linked to fish sauce, and I guess I'm a saucy fish. Or I need a reliable sauce. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Slàinte mhath, Tryptomerman, and I know little about whisky, but my Dad fancied himself a connoisseur and always had a bottle of this available, bless his heart. Slàinte! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! And it's the giant economy size, which is even better! A nice, shapely bottle... no, I'm not gonna go there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

tv

Just got my Disney+ too .. guessing you have Comcast/Xfinity? Watched first episode of Wanda Vision and The Mandilorian. Still not sure on the ESPN+ .. it seems it didn't automatically import with the others. Looking forward to the 'Zilla movie (been watching since the early 70's .. some great stuff on Sat. morning. - and agree "so bad it's good). Think I've seen most of the Zilla and Kong stuff in the past 20 years or so - but could have missed one. Liked the Sam Jackson one, but the Mathew Brodrick and Jack Black ones I could go either way. Did you see the Snyder cut of Justice League yet? — Ched (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as into that category of movies as it sounds like you are, but I can certainly use some escape. Funny that you asked me about the Snyder cut, because I haven't seen it, and I too was thinking of asking if anyone had seen it. I'm curious, but reluctant to give it four hours. And, yes, it's effing Comcast. (I just posted a joke about the Zilla stuff at Arb-talk, and I got the red notification from you so soon after doing so that I had a moment of paranoia, thinking I had been blocked for posting it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

LOL .. seriously doubt any admin would block on that. Pic was funny. I only got through about half of Snyder cut ... will finish this weekend maybe. I probably favor Star Trek over Wars, but enjoy both. These days I have more time for TV and movies. (reasons are personal info I'd only share in email though). Picked up the new Hanks movie too News of the World (DVD). DVR kinda backed up too .. sigh - so much "entertainment" and so little time. lol. Getting dragged back into wiki has hurt my time too ... need to go back to my own little "short description" world. — Ched (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just being momentarily paranoid, but kinda shows where the on-wiki mentality is these days. Talk page watchers should definitely check out the aforementioned pic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to Mahsa Shoaran's Wiki page

Thank you so much for your message. We really appreciate the support you provide for the Wikipedia platform.

First of all let us clearly define a neuroscientist: A neuroscientist (or neurobiologist) is a scientist who has specialised knowledge in the field of neuroscience, the branch of biology. This person studied electrical engineering and she cannot be considered as a neuroscientist. Please do not add unreal titles to the people. We added full reference for any new sentences. We beleive in the clarification of the current situation about the recrutments of new professors in Switzerland and we are trying to clearly and honestly provide all information to the readers. Please do not remove the critical information that are clearly cited. Number of citation in our field is very important and we are trying to make a transparent scientific enviroment. Everyone should be able to receive the information about the number of citations of a professor at the time of his/her recrument and how much self-citated references they have. The sentence about the self-citation was cited clearly. 20 out of 26 references were self-citation and unfortunately this is becoming a trend to increase the number of citation and we cannot understand why it was removed. If you believe in transparent information you should not eliminate such critical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.236.190 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Answered at the IP's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And the page is now deleted. Thanks to Chris troutman for the PROD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're still interested

I added a bit of info to Talk:World Patent Marketing because few editors have used that page. Much of the commenting has been confined to edit summaries on the article page. Based on my first-hand experiences, I can assure you that this particular article has created a high stress, complex working environment; not a fun ride for the happily retired, so please don't misconstrue this post as an invitation to edit. I would not do that to anyone I consider a Wikifriend. Common sense tells us that the deeper one digs, the more information comes to light, and the better the result...but better, yet, is when the findings are reviewed through the lens of a pragmatist. 🎶 Ta-da! 🎶 Atsme 💬 📧 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of editing it. I'd rather lick a cactus! But having seen the unhappiness at your talk page, I felt like it was the right thing for me to comment in the discussion at BLPN ([33]). Having done that, I'm outta there. In general, I find that the most useful, and relatively less stressful, way to deal with that kind of content dispute is to start an RfC, and to construct the RfC as a choice between two (or more) choices that reflect the opposing views of how to write it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: Just letting you know that I saw your reply to me at WP:BLPN, so I'm aware of it. But as I said just above, I'm washing my hands of this, so I'm not going to look into it any further, and don't much want to discuss it any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and about licking a cactus...I have a much better option. Atsme 💬 📧 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Now, that's a good solution to a thorny problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Uhm..."a good solution to a thorny problem"...do you have a lisp? 🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean: "a good tholuthion to a horny problem"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Update

Mpants. Atsme 💬 📧 20:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Hooray!! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Damn, you guys move fast. I saw Tony's response to my emailed unblock request while I was on the toilet. I logged in as soon as I got back to my desk, and Tryp's welcome was on my talk already. I was legit hoping to announce my renewed presence with snide comments.

You know. For the lulz. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You must do one for the lulz and the highs. Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's something oddly appropriate about finding out about it there. Flush with success, and all that! Anyway, I've really missed you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought about quite a few of you guys a lot during the past 2 years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dipping my toe back in

Perhaps as a sign of my improving wiki-mood, and definitely because this strikes me as a subject that WP needs to cover, I've tentatively dipped my toe (fin?) back into content editing, and started a page on Ora Nichols. If ever there were a woman who has been too-long overlooked by WP, it's her. I'll be taking it to DYK in a few days. If any of my talk page participants would be so kind as to give it a look and make any improvements or suggestions, that would be great! Something that bugs me is that I haven't found any dates of birth or death, or information about life outside of work, so if anyone finds that, I'd appreciate it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Turn on your email

Photo of me naked. But we already knew that. --Tryptofish

Or email me. I want to tell you something without putting it in a public place.

It's nothing bad, I promise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, and it's nothing personal, for sure, but I'd rather not. I'm super-sensitive about privacy. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that. Would you like me to say it here? You might find it a little embarrassing, but I assure you it's no big deal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Entirely up to you. I wouldn't want you to get into trouble over it. As long as it isn't a photo of me naked, I don't think I'll be embarrassed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as it isn't a photo of me naked, I don't think I'll be embarrassed. No, no. I'm keeping those all to myself.

It's regarding this edit. I wanted to say that... Well... Tryp, I'm on the spectrum. Asperger syndrome. Was diagnosed at 14. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, is that all? I already knew that, because you already told me that. I wouldn't have said that, otherwise. See User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 36#For connoisseurs of eye-popping DYK hook possibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay then! I know some people get mortified if they think they might have offended someone with something like that. It's never bothered me a bit (because I've met people further along the spectrum than I and... Yeah. There's a reason "autist" became the go-to insult on the internet.)

I had honestly forgotten that I'd ever mentioned it on WP. Makes sense though. I'm an over-sharer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

All good! (I recently told a joke that I had forgotten I told before, on EEng's talk page, where it's no laughing matter!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tot

Hey!, please, tolerate talk page messages. You're welcome. --Pedro158 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For those watching: [34], [35]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wut. --Pedro158 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess you not do nothing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Chung

環遊世界 123.194.96.40 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Test edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Everybody's having fun, tonight. Fun fact! That video give me nightmares. Literally. I used to like it, too... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking care with tags

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols, you used <small>...</small> tags. But the way you did it created Missing end tag for <small>...</small>. Whenever a <small> tag is on a line beginning with an asterisk (*), number (#) or colon (:), the closing </small> tag also has to be within the scope of the the asterisk, number, or colon. In other words, each bullet point needs its own <small>...</small> markup. I fixed the error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Thanks for catching and correcting my mistake. I actually do know about that, and normally do it correctly, but for whatever reason this time, I made a mistake. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WP functions and external sites

After reading a thread at the arbcom noticeboard I realized that it should be policy that discussion by "functionaries" (i.e. admin or arb member and possibly everyone involved in a case) related to ongoing processes should strictly use the expected open on-WP processes for discussion (except obviously for things that should be more private as part of those processes, or restricted to designated mailing lists and wikis). If it's not already the case (I admit I didn't research it yet) maybe it's something to look at and propose. Although we're all volunteers, in the real world we're often expected professional confidentiality, for instance; this would be a similar type of integrity expectation. WP:CANVASS is somewhat related... —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I need to clarify: WP:Functionaries are defined as Arbs, Checkusers, and Oversighters. They include neither admins nor regular editors. That said, I'm familiar with the discussion you refer to (obviously, to anyone who reads it), but I'm not seeing anything that I would formally propose. ArbCom makes its own rules, and the community can only advise about that. And we are talking about things that are in the category of "if you gotta ask, you'll never know". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How incredibly, amazingly, impressively, ultimately, ludicrously, poignantly, wonderfully, wetly, scratchily, loosely, adjectively unhelpful of you

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Don't worry, the title is just me making fun of my own comment. I'm not upset or annoyed.

I get where you're coming from at Bish's talk, the problem wasn't what you said, but the fact that someone (anyone, really) weighed in with something for Stonk to reply to. Now, instead of a simple request from me and an excuse from Stonk, there's an argument for Bish to wade through. Ultimately, it's not your fault (it's Stonk's fault both for making the situation to begin with, and for latching onto your comment like that), it was just a mistake. I hope I didn't sound like I was being an ass.

I had to erase three comments I wanted to type there, and let me tell you, choosing not to say something (especially to say that I never asked for a block, but Stonk had gotten three warnings already, so since we're all on the same page of blocks following warnings...) for someone as deeply in love with his own voice/writings as me is an act of willpower. For someone like Stonk, I doubt it's even an option. (Note how I managed to work it in here, just to get it out of my system.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are too close to it right now, to be seeing it clearly. And I don't want to argue with you about it any further. But I really want you to take to heart what I said about edit summaries. You just got back after the last time that some troublemaker who isn't worth anyone's time made a wikilawyer ploy about you being "incivil" in an edit summary, and the last thing that you need is for it to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from at Bish's talk Why you making me repeat myself? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I'm really not being helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for Ora Nichols

On 16 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ora Nichols, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ora Nichols was the first woman to run a radio sound effects unit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ora Nichols), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

2,598 views. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

YAAAAY!!

Sort of.

As I said above, I decided to tentatively stick my toe/fin back into the water of content editing and see what happens. I had heard a radio piece about Ora Nichols (cited at the page), and decided that it interested me enough to create the page. So I did. It was the first meaningful content work I have done since I semi-demi-retired.

Writing the page, and researching it, was fun. And I'm happy with the way it came out. And the DYK review went just fine.

Then, at the same time as the DYK review, a rather pointless, and needlessly Wiki-policing, idea was floated at WT:DYK#"First person to do X" hooks. As a result of the early parts of the discussion, the DYK reviewer and I decided to change the proposed hook. Still OK with me.

Then an admin changed the hook and put it into the full-protected queue. It was an entirely good-faith change, and it had some reason to it, but I found it objectionable because it went against what I understand the thrust of the source material to be. (I should make the caveat that my objection was a rather nitpicking one, not earthshaking. EEng pointed that out at the time, and so did some reasonable people.) But it mattered to me. And it led to some discussions that I found somewhat disappointing here, here, and here. And that part just seems to me to be (albeit in a rather minor way) the same old same old that increasingly annoys me about the Wikipedia community.

That said, I was successful over the course of those discussion to get the hook that ended up as the final one appearing on the Main Page, to be the hook that I originally proposed (ALT0), so it worked out in the end. Good new article, good hook. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well done, congrats. — Ched (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Tryptofish,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Time to pick your brain

Just curious...a friend who has a master's in nutrition refuses to take an antigen test based on this article and from what I gathered, her concerns over the presence of Darpa hydrogel being in these tests. I haven't a clue about any of it, so I scanned Google scholar (as if I could understand any of it) and came across this list of articles. Do you think my friend has a valid reason to be concerned or is nutritruth.org off the charts unreliable? Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-the-charts. You may, perhaps, have heard conspiracy theories that Bill Gates created microchips to go into COVID vaccines in order to track people (as if phones can't do that already), and take over the world or something. This is tin-foil hat stuff, truly loony tunes. DARPA is a perfectly legitimate research wing of the Defense Dept. They have sponsored research about hydrogels, in case they can be used to treat wounds, maybe by stopping bleeding. So could hydrogels, if they were present in an antigen kit, result in genocide? Facepalm. The way an antigen test for COVID works is someone takes a blood sample, just like when a doctor has you get blood tests for routine checkups, or maybe a swab from the nose. That's taking a sample, not putting anything into someone. Then a lab does a test, to see if the sample reacts with antibodies that recognize a coronavirus. It's a way to evaluate whether or not someone has been exposed to COVID (or a similar virus). Now, maybe, there are some hydrogels in the test kit that is used in the lab to test the sample. Maybe, I don't know. But there is no bleeping way that anything in the test kit is going to get back into the person the sample came from. No bleeping way. So it's not like the person could possibly get the hydrogel into them, or even near them. (Unless one is a wacko conspiracy theorist who believes that a microchip the size of a dime can go through a syringe needle or believes that the lab tech who takes someone's sample for an antigen test is sooper-sekretly injecting the person with a hydrogel that would leave a bulge under the skin where the needle went in, or would get sneezed out of the nose after a nose swab.) And could all of that great big nothing-burger result in genocide? Duh, no. (What, me, getting all worked up?) Anyway, the genocide stuff really takes the whole thing into wacko land. Your friend's health doesn't depend on getting the test. It's just for information about past exposure. (Although an employer or health department might ask her to get one.) But if she also refuses a vaccine, that would be sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thx, Tryp - I figured as much but my explanation would have sounded very layperson to someone with an M.S. in clinical nutrition. The only thing I'm a master at is baiting...as in my Bass 'N Gal days. 🎣 But speaking of microchips, that's another topic. Atsme 💬 📧 22:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. As for Fish and chips, when I repeated that thing that I heard, about the size of a dime, I had a feeling that I was passing along something inaccurate. I guess I know more about corn chips than about microchips. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I just read, pretty much in its entirety, your Bass 'N Gal link (better than Fish 'N Chips). I didn't know until now that you had done work with birds: piping plover and least tern. I've been a life-long birder, so I really like that! (But "One Good Tern Deserves Another": now I know where you got your taste for puns!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In case you're interested

there's a current discussion at User_talk:Kratu_the_rescue_dog#Yep,_WP_probably_should_have_an_article_about_this_dog. Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I noticed that you said that you recently got your first COVID vaccine shot. I'm glad, and I hope that it's a good thing for you and yours. (I got my shots about three months ago, and I was very, very happy to get them.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

New message from Chess

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bishonen test categories has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bishonen test categories has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MALVOLIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a truly momentous occasion. The first time that WP:MALVOLIO has been used for its intended purpose. Centuries from now, children will look to their parents at bedtime and ask with eager voices and dreams in their eyes, "Will you tell me the story of the fun police again?" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes at the circumstances.) Thanks. I should live so long! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's all you, buddy. I'm grumpy enough in my 40's, could you imagine what I'd be like in my 400's? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's one dryyyy fish. I wouldn't blame you for being grumpy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, drinks all around! Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And after all that, the CfD was withdrawn by the nominator. No hard feelings on my part. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice this comment until after I'd left a beer at the nom's talk page and explained that I harbor no hard feelings, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

indenting

No worries, btw. I know it looks weird sticking out there, but for me for that post it's a feature not a bug. :) —valereee (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I do all kinds of weird stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

off of EEngs lawn

Apparently, local women who had a pretty decent grasp of English would spread around crude English phrases as a joke, saying it was the properly formal way for a young woman to greet a young, foreign man in American culture.

My favorite instance was when we were posted up inside a smallish shed near the back of some friendly farmer's property watching a small compound and waiting for orders. Middle of the day, the farmer's mischievous wife sent their daughter out to us with tea and a "proper greeting". By that point we'd heard it all before, so when she came in with the tea and greeted us with "You have a pretty cock," my buddy Jay didn't bat an eyelash, just smiled and said "Ashkuruk," ("Thank you") as he took the tea. I still like to remind him of that, usually in an as out-of-the-blue way as possible.

It's an extremely common joke, and I've even heard it here in the US (and may have given a few friends some foreign language "pickup lines" or "customary greetings" myself...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's very interesting! I, like a lot of Americans, have a stereotyped image of Middle Easterners as religiously conservative and repressed, but I keep seeing how people are people the world around. So it's really quite reassuring that young Iraqi women can act like young American women, so long as the wrong people aren't watching them. By the way, I would figure that Iraqis would speak Persian, rather than Arabic. (I should also say that I've had Iranian grad students working in my lab, and they were quite sophisticated about Western culture.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Arabic and Kurdish are the official languages, and there's a lot of Arab influences in the Iraqi identity. Half the country is on the Arabian peninsula, after all. They don't even recognize Farsi as regional language, though lots of more rural folks near the border with Iran speak at least a few words of it, and there's tiny pockets of fluency here and there.

Yes, most of the people I met over there were quite conservative, but there's a lot of universalism in humanity. Rednecks are quite conservative in the States, yet no-one would be surprised to hear one make a dick joke, and my unit spent our first deployment out of the cities, in the sticks, where all the Iraqi rednecks are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Request (Atsme)

Please read the Conclusion of this research paper, which in retrospect, I question calling it a "staple food", which is a rather exceptional claim. When trying to find other sources to support such a claim (2008), I was not very successful. The other issue is that the reference to "staple food" is not just about the alligator gar so it could be misconstrued. The reference speaks to various species of gar. While researching for more sources to support "staple", I found material that is far more worthy of inclusion as an update, so I replaced what I consider to be "meh" material with updated material. I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with an IP over the inclusion of "staple food" vs "popular food choice", so hopefully the update will suffice - maybe it won't, so I'm simply seeking your opinion as a former collaborator, a scientist and someone who is knowledgeable about fish & aquariums. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The source seems to me to be a detailed examination of how gar fry develop (developmental biology) and how that applies to aquaculture of them. Aside from that one phrase within one sentence in the Conclusion section, it's not really about how big or small a role in people's diets gar have. So it seems to me that, as an editorial matter, it can be "safe" to say "staple" and attribute that to this source, because that's literally the word they use – but it's not a source that I would want to use for how many days a week people eat it, or whether they eat it because they like it, or because they depend upon it for nutrition. Consequently, I think the IP was making a mountain over a molehill to argue with you about it. And I also think the best editorial strategy is to do exactly what you did in your most recent edit to the page: just drop the sentence entirely, and replace it with a more directly-relevant source, from which you quote verbatim. I think you handled it the right way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Request (TOA)

Regarding "Then, out of the blue, TOA posted a trollish comment that served only to complain that if BHG had been blocked, then MPants should have been, too."

That is not what I said. I respectfully request that you strike, and/or apologize for, the remaining part of that comment. Implying that I am a troll is a violation of NPA. And it is posted in a BHG section and not a MPants section, so per AGF you should interpret it as my opinion as to what should happen to BHG (rather than a complaint about how the MPants thread went). Thank you. 23:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

No, I'm not going to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not? 00:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

I stand by what I said, and I don't buy your reasoning in your request here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thought of you when I saw this

A short jog down the road from me is a live underwater camera. The viz is poor right now, at least for anything beyond 5 to 10 feet in front of the camera. Looking out my window now, I can see some surface chop so the wind must have kicked-up a bit of sand in the shallow water (we have 50 to 100 ft. viz a little further out where the reef begins, but close to shore, it's not so good.) Anyway, there's an interesting diversity of reef fish that come and go, so it can be quite relaxing with the right kind of music in the background. About to be heading for the US in a few hours. Atsme 💬 📧 13:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a lovely thing to watch, and I've bookmarked it to watch often. Have a good and safe trip! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy Wiki-birthday, Trippyfish. Our interactions have been such a joy. I'm honestly glad I "found" you on Atsme's talk page. I spend a fair amount of time in user space because, in my opinion, building community relationships is a crucial element to improving the encyclopedia and the atmosphere surrounding it. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and once again congrats on your good news, at your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Your wiki-friend

Tryptofish,

I appreciate your efforts to give a thoughtful response] to my post at ANI. I will say that I was not surprised at the results. I predicted them myself -- people thinking that "pilgrim" is not a problem and not caring about the targeting, folks just piling in with the jokes, and nothing getting done. The end result is that I now have a powerful editor (and I'm ranking power not in admin-bits but in support and "wiki-friends") who has been effectively told that there is nothing against the rules about taking deliberate efforts with the sole apparent reason of making me uncomfortable, and that nothing will be done about it. No one even suggested that they should say that they wouldn't do this again in order to make this go away.

And yes, I am teetering on the edge of resigning Wikipedia. I am an editor with a long and substantial history of contributing to this project, and so of course I've dealt with a lot of problems -- determined vandals, aggressive and abusive COI editors, newbies whose vision for how Wikipedia should work overrides. Because I edit under my own name (a choice so that it's clear when I do and do not have a COI, as many of my personal interests are linked to my professional ones), the article about me has been subject to various retaliatory attacks, and I have been subject to off-wiki targeting. I've faced not just legal threats, I've actually had a purported billionaire file a lawsuit against me. Some of this just rolls off, some of this has caused a lot of unhealthy stress. I've gotten through it with a perfectly clean block log and, up until now, to the best of my recollection, never requesting nor receiving an interaction ban.

But now the problems are coming from "inside the house". Now I have a powerful, experienced editor who has decided to make me their target. They did, of course, have ample chance in the discussion to say that they wouldn't target me, but of course they only used their involvement in the thread to make jokes, give the old-back-and-forth with their wiki-chums, because the matter of deliberately abusing a fellow editor was not something they were at all concerned about. (And yes, I'm perfectly aware that they are likely to see this message. I fully expect they are glorying in the idea that they may have gotten under my skin enough to make me quit.) A group of admins just decided that it's a-okay for them to be deliberating making the editing environment here acidic. If I continue to edit, I am volunteering to be their ongoing target -- and I see their name often enough to know that our editing realms overlap.

So it's all very nice for you to write a message to me that you hope this doesn't drive me off... but what have you actually done to make that happen? What have you actually said to your "wiki-friend"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler, you brought up an instance where EEng referred to you by a term you didn't like. EEng was told not to continue. If they do then it is grounds for harassing and hounding. Drag them back to AN/I and provide the diffs where they do it and the community can see this is not just a one off between two editors that happened to disagree on something. There is no official interaction ban. We specifically shot down any BOOMERANG against you as trivial and unnecessary. If you decide not to interact then that is your decision. Personally, I would just go on editing as I normally would. If you cross paths again then edit as you normally would. There is no reason to let this stop you from editing. Does it benefit the encyclopedia to have you stop editing? I don't think so. Don't be antagonistic if you come across them but state your position plainly and back it up with reliable sources. You'll be fine. Your feelings are valid because you are valid. Just keep going. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

EEng was told not to continue. No, they were told that it was "probably best" if they didn't. No commands given. Dragging them back to ANI (not that they actually were "dragged" to ANI, they themselves saw no need to say anything of substance, and were only there for the larfs) would seem likely to have the same effect as taking the matter there in the first time -- he was, after all, warned by me that this could go to ANI, so being warned that it could go to ANI again would seem to have little impact. There is no reason to let this stop you from editing. I'm sorry you missed the part where the deliberate targeting of me and the group decision that my concerns are not just to be meaningful addressed but are to be derided are the source of stress, stress which can and does have genuine physical consequences. (In my field, at least one death has been attributed to a stroke that likely arose from stress over online arguments.) Yes, there are reasons for both happiness and health to discontinue my editing. My choosing to "just keep going" may well be the best thing for the Wikipedia, but given its current state, probably not the best thing for me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nat, since you love to quote what was said in the summary by the closer, I will make a few quotes myself, @EEng: please stop calling Nat Gerler "pilgrim"., It obviously bothers Nat and it should be stopped", EEng should stop calling Nat a pilgrim. That is three examples of EEng being directly requested or told they should stop or have stopped. Tryp came in and further chastised EEng by stating they shouldn't have said it and only made it worse by repeating it. In this case, it didn't rise to the level that the community felt was block worthy or even interaction ban worthy. That is not to say that, should it continue, it won't get there. If you decide to stop editing because someone goaded you into retirement then that's your choice. You are free to come or go as you choose. My suggestion to you was not just for the sake of the encyclopedia but also because your voice does matter. My position hasn't changed and wont change. I might be quirky, I definitely love to laugh and smile, but I am absolutely genuine and nothing I said to you was done haphazardly or dismissive of your feelings.--ARoseWolf 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nat, and first of all, thank you for taking the time to come here and discuss it with me.

You ask what I have done to tell EEng to show more courtesy to other editors, and that's a very fair question. And the truth is, that I have done so. Please let me direct your attention here. You need to scroll down to my comment beginning with "EEng, I have a bunch of things to say." The first paragraph of my comment is joking about the dispute of that time, but I hope you will see what I said in part of the second paragraph: In my experience, you are very frequently correct in your evaluations of editorial judgements here. But the fact that you are right and someone else is wrong does not entitle you to show off what a smarty-pants you are by making fun of them. It's really ugly. I mean it. Stop doing it. Bish wasn't wrong in terms of enacting consensus, but she was wrong in making it psychologically easier for you to figure that you were vindicated. She did you, personally, no favor. And you really, really need to get the message that you have every right to explain why you are correct about something, but no right to ridicule other editors who are wrong. So, yes, I've done that. And it wasn't the only time. I won't track down every time, but there is here, where, if you go down to my comment starting "FWIW", you will see me agreeing with advice from an admin, that EEng should stop mocking other editors. And, once I finish writing my reply to you here, I'm going to do it yet another time, and I'll post a diff here.

If you look up near the top of my talk page here, and at the current version of my user page, you will see that I am very serious about my concerns over declining civility here, and that it has led me to quit for a significant amount of time before coming back to a lesser amount of editing activity. And I sympathize with your real-life difficulties. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through that. At the same time, EEng is a, well, complicated person. He is unquestionably smart and makes a lot of positive contributions here, but he also has a lot of pride, an annoying tendency to be a smarty-pants, and a flawed sense of whether other people will or will not think what he writes is funny. (Yes, I expect him to see that I said that.) People can tell him to change, but he also is who he is. And "pilgrim" isn't even close to being the worst thing he has ever said, nor is it, objectively, a particularly nasty thing to say. The fact that it pressed your buttons does, however, make it something that he should have immediately stopped repeating (and I expect him to see me say that, too). I can respect whatever choice you make about editing here or not, but I hope that you will know, in any case, that I sincerely wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As promised, the diff of what I said I would do: [36]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well said, Trypto. I find EEng very funny. Equally, as you've pointed out before, he's often a real pain in the admins. I meant no malice and I'm very sorry if Nat's feelings have been hurt. I know there's nothing worse than feeling belittled by gangs and cliques. Vast swathes of Wikipedia are so humourless that it's easy to get carried away with the slightest excuse for light-hearted ridicule. The entire scenario seemed to me (and still seems, I must admit) quite ridiculous. Perhaps Nat will forgive me for likening his predicament to a strong and punchy extra mature cheddar. [37] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing me that older posted, Tryptofish. I recognize and respect your earnestness.

Nonetheless, I am about to go post an "extended Wikibreak" notice on my talk page, holding off claiming absolute retirement for now. And then I will do something I've not done in many years, if ever: log out. We'll see if I choose to stay off (or even if I can. I mean, I have some strong will, but sometimes the commas are in the wrong damn place!)

May you do well by Wikipedia, and may it do well by you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Failed pings

Regarding this, I saw that thread and was going to notify you here about those totally unjustified comments, but it slipped my mind. Sorry about that. Anyway, I noticed that the OP oddly linked to your talk page instead of your user page, and wondered if that was the reason why the ping didn't go through. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this message, and no worries! Yes, linking to my talk is the reason for the failed ping. At this point, water under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And if anyone looks at that diff, please note that I subsequently corrected "SPI" to "SPA". lol. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits to others' user pages

Due to your history of failing to AGF regarding my edits, I have reverted your edits to my userspace.

I don't object to your idea per se, but rather I would prefer for there to be wider community input on it.

Thank you, 20:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Duly noted. As for wider community input, be careful what you wish for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We edit conflicted, and I started a similar thread just below yours. WP:ANI#Gravedancing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fishy

I know you probably get it a lot but just in case you don't, you are so amazing, my friend. --ARoseWolf 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Always nice to get the opportunity to say: +1  : ) - jc37 20:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's lovely! Thanks, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You have been nominated

 You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Movement Charter/Affiliates by Region/North America. You have been nominated by User:RightCowLeftCoast, with meta:San Diego Wikimedians User Group, to be a region selector for North America (Canada, and the United States) for the Movement Charter selector committee. If you accept your nomination, please indicate it on the page. If you do not accept your nomination, please remove yourself from the list of potential selectors. Thanks in advance for your time regarding this nomination, and thanks for everything you have done so far on a Wikimedia project. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (2)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your level-headed and diligent comments at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope#Proposal: Remove text that refers to or implies death. I specifically appreciate you recognizing that my proposal was done in good faith. ––FormalDude talk 00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is truly nice of you! I think that, even when editors disagree, we should recognize that we are acting with good intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Awwww, it's true and this was a very nice and well deserved gesture by FormalDude. I never lose faith in the positives of humanity despite all the negatives we sometimes encounter. You both are fine examples of the former. --ARoseWolf 19:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Group hug! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I do smell like fish for real, I've been hanging them in the smoke house today. --ARoseWolf 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That's OK! You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot smoke a fish, nor tune one. Actually, that's not true, and I love lox! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned

Hi, Le Poisson de Trypto. (Poisson sans boisson est poison!) Thank you. That's Attic Salt. I thought of responding to them, but what I wanted to say would have been needlessly unkind for a retired user. Bishonen | tålk 05:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

No problem! Generally, I'm the polar opposite of the compulsively gnomish type, but there's something about unsigned comments that makes me want to clarify who it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryptofish (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

“Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?”

A collection of "experts" after only three weeks of editing Wikipedia...

-- ME123

This student essay by USF student Savannah Robison from 2017 was featured on Hacker News today, and I immediately thought back to our discussion about Gerald Crabtree and the Idiocracy hypothesis. Do you have any comments about Robison’s essay? In yet another data point along this line of reasoning, have you read the studies about the reduction of cognitive function due to climate change (heat and air pollution)? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Synaptic pruning

Synaptic plum-ing. --Tryptofish

Interesting. First, my obligatory comedy routine, even though my friend Martin beat me to it, re: shrunken heads. But I certainly agree with him that my own brain has shrunk as a result of editing here. Or as a result of my being me, or something. Is Idiocracy a Wikipedia criticism website? Oh, and Republicans are definitely evolving dumber, probably from the microchips in their vaccines.

OK, now that I got that out of my system, down to the serious-ish answer. (See also: Brain size, Brain-to-body mass ratio, Encephalization quotient, List of animals by number of neurons, and Neuroscience and intelligence, keeping in mind that there have been long-time POV disputes with some of them.) I agree with some of the people she cites in her well-written essay, that smaller doesn't equate to dumber. (Size doesn't matter; it's what you do with it. Wink, wink.) As she notes, synaptic pruning among many other mechanisms can lead to brains that are smaller in terms of grey matter volume, but more efficient functionally. (Just as newer computers become more powerful and smaller with each new iteration. Just squishier.) Whether there's anything to the idea that changing evolutionary pressures are selecting less strongly for intellect, I dunno. One could make a case that smarter people tend to have fewer children, but that's subjective. As for pollution, I'd want to know if the brain size trends differ between built-up and rural parts of the world. Lead in drinking water, for example, can certainly cause neuron loss, sadly. As for recent climate change, there hasn't been enough time for it to have affected human evolution at the level of brain structure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Synaptic pruning? I've had my fair share, thank you. But few more thankless tasks than skinning prunes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think rum and prune juice is the old person's cocktail. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much. Sorry for bringing this whole neurological thread down to my level. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I just became aware of the 2021 in science page, which lists this nugget for October:

Researchers describe and substantiate the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size in the last 3,000 years has resulted from externalization of knowledge and group decision-making, partly via social systems of distributed cognition and sharing of information.[38][39]

Am I correct in interpreting your above comments that you support the idea that "brain shrinkage parallels the expansion of collective intelligence in human societies"? Extrapolating further out in the future, does this also imply that we are losing our individuality and moving towards a hive mind-like form of consciousness? Indulge me, please. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No indulgence needed; I enjoy discussing these kinds of things. First of all, whoever thought that those two sources were WP:DUE for a summary of the year in science was... wrong.

But about brain shrinkage, I'd be willing to go just far enough to say that it might parallel an increase in the efficiency of brain organization in individuals. In other words, as evolution and natural selection proceed over time, brains will tend to have fewer extraneous structural elements, and therefore might perhaps get smaller while also getting more efficient. But that's not the same as paralleling something happening to collective intelligence. If you gather some additional useful knowledge, that doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on a genetic change to make my descendants' brains more efficient.

Let's imagine that, with the development of human society, some people learn to become really good at farming, and some others learn to become really good at editing Wikipedia. If, hypothetically, those roles were made strictly and comprehensively inherited in families, I could imagine that, over generations, the farmers would develop really specialized farmer brains that don't need to do anything else, and the Wikipedians would develop really specialized editor brains that would just sit on the couch in their mother's basement and not need to do anything else. (OK, bad example, problem with Wikipedians never having offspring, but you get the idea.) In theory, that could lead to smaller and smaller brains that are more and more specialized. But that's not reality, because humans don't do the same tasks as their ancestors, or even their parents. The child of a farmer could become an editor, and the child of an editor could become a farmer. Consequently, there will be little or no evolutionary pressure over generations for the brains to specialize in such particular ways. Collectively, we've probably got less use for brain circuitry that watches for mastodons, but more use for brain circuitry that can type on a phone using thumbs.

As for hive-mind consciousness, I suppose a case can be made that crowdsourcing the writing of an encyclopedia is depending on a sort of collective summation of intelligence. But that's actually not a bunch of brains working together in some kind of coordination. It's a bunch of brains, each acting individually. There's this process of natural selection of which edits stick and which don't. But that process doesn't really result in all those brains coordinating their electrical activities. The dumbass POV-pusher who gets reverted is unlikely to get a more efficient brain as a result of the revert. I don't really know what I think about brains becoming more "hive"-like. I know that I find the thought distasteful and dystopian, at least in the science fiction form of a city full of brains that fire action potentials or theta waves in unison. But, with Facebook algorithms, who knows what will happen? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I have some fun for a moment? Bernard Crespi, professor of evolutionary biology at Simon Fraser University, takes E. O. Wilson’s controversial idea of loosely characterizing humans as eusocial in his speculative article "The Insectan Apes" (2013). I was wondering if you had seen it, or if you think any of his ideas should be taken seriously. In an altogether different domain, you’re probably well aware of the psychological research both Nicholas G. Carr and Sherry Turkle cite in their popular books about how the Internet is changing our brains. Bottom line: what if we are evolving to become less human-like we were in the past and more insect-like in our behavioral future? And would this be truly all that surprising given that insects are the most evolutionary successful organisms on the planet? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Since we're speaking of insects, and since KoA is an expert on them and I think he is watching here, I'll invite him (or anyone else watching, for that matter) to weigh in as well.

Well, as I see it, it certainly is speculative. And Crespi does note that humans/primates have the evolutionary pressures of large brains, unlike insects. As for insects being the most evolutionary successful organisms, one can also make a case for bacteria and fungii as being even more successful, which would present problems in terms of making such a brain-oriented argument. And evolutionary success could look very different after a catastrophic climate disruption. I actually have not been following any of those authors, but it occurs to me to point to parallel evolution in this regard. It's one thing to point to a fairly specific phenotypic trait for such evolutionary similarities: an organism that looks very similar to another, venomous, species, to dissuade predators. But for humans and insects, the similarities are not so morphologically definable. Certainly, there are ways in which populations of people assign roles to individuals, and there are insect species that have workers, soldiers, and reproducers. But, similarly to what I said in my previous answer, insects will tend to be locked into their genetic roles for life (barring, for example, the death of the queen bee, and a new queen emerging), whereas humans can move fluidly from one work role to another. So where Crespi notes "extensive divisions of labor", the mechanisms of how those divisions arise are quite different. There are certainly ways in which humans share food and make decisions cooperatively. But it feels to me like the comparisons are as much metaphorical as scientifically literal: there are interesting ways in which insect behaviors look like things humans do, but it doesn't mean that the neurological mechanisms are comparable.

Is internet culture changing our brains? Are internet algorithms doing so? In terms of how humans act, it sure looks that way, and not in a good way. Will that be selected for in evolution? It's way too soon to know (barely one generation of gene selection). I could say, half-facetiously, that some people are turning into [insert name of animal that would be most pejorative]. Are people becoming more conformist? Maybe. Does that make the conformists more like ants in an ant hill? As a metaphor, OK (maybe like lemmings, too). Does it mean that our brains are evolving towards having less cerebral cortex and more brainstem? I don't know, I kind of doubt it, and I hope not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson is one of my favorites in terms of his sheer fondness for ants. I haven't read that particular one yet, but he has definitely been getting a little far "out there" in recent years that I attribute to a well-known elder scientist taking some (well-deserved) artistic license. I wouldn't say going off the deep end or anything like that, just more in the vein of colorful language, but I can't say his recent ideas are really taken extremely seriously. I'd say they are best treated as thought provoking for the more philosophical rather than hard science realm. KoA (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you tell me! I just invested all my cash in formicarium futures, since as we become more insect-like, people will naturally gravitate to living on ant farms. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Such are the perils of formication. And do look at that page – the hatnote is priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that face is judging me. KoA (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The insects' revenge! Just imagine being judged by these faces. And for a different kind of judging, I followed some see also's and found Jay Traver, quite a buggy story! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And, of course, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That reminds me some interesting drama back then. Talk:Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#RFC_on_penis_size & Talk:Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#Size_doesn't_matter based on the last line of Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi#Description. KoA (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that, too. Good times. Also, I thought of Roach Motel as an alternative to a formicarium. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson, one of the true giants. RIP. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Tryptofish:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, boo! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Your sub-section, your choice

I read it. It's a proposal for sure. But, since it's a sub-section that you started? I won't be getting into a needless edit-war with you, over it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you did it in good faith, but it was the third or fourth or something time that it happened in a matter of minutes, and I felt like enough is enough. In my opinion, although there are proposal aspects to it, it's not like the other proposals, and yes, I started that subsection. For those watching, it's about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest that you elaborate on the sub-heading? Just having the said-editor's name, creates a grey area feel to it. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about it, but I'm feeling kind of pooped over the whole thing at this moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Never ignore a poo poo" ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Short memory

It helps to have a short memory when working on this project. The problem is diffs never let anyone forget. At ANI I had to refresh my memory about why you would be ruffled, and then I made myself re-read the dustup over the ARS template from 2 years ago. And reading that I also saw Dlthewave's edit warring over some random list I posted there, and etc. and on and on. I prefer not to remember these things - ever. Later I participated in many GEO AfDs with Dlthewave and even proposed Geo items for deletion that he ivoted on. However points contention arose when I had a different opinion about some GEO related subjects - we all know what happened next - no need for re-litigation. In ANI - editors like yourself and many others remember these points of friction and hurriedly dredge up the fractious diffs. FYI:I may petition so that I am allowed to only ivote delete in the future. Because nobody ever had a problem with my many delete ivotes even though they are decidedly less reasoned. just kidding

I am sure you are a good guy, and I was about to post an apology on ANI about the friction over the ARS template after my memory was refreshed, but then I saw you mixing it up with DF - and going after him. I decided not to say anything because it seemed any post from me drew negativity or suspicion. Chum in the water. Next I saw your support for my ouster with a rationale that made my jaw drop. It was quite literally a feeding frenzy in that place. One Arbcom member said he watched with baited breath. I am probably not ever going to post any article on ARS again. I have only been involved for about two years, and yet I bear the brunt for 12 years of bad feelings. If I had a long memory I would be unable to continue after the terrible things which have been said.

I am enjoying my time away from AfD. I spent way to many hours deletion sorting every day and night. And I spent many hours working on deletion related articles, or tied up in questions about rationales. Have a look at the discussion for Big John dinosaur: I saw an argument in that AfD over the size of the specimen, so I spent 4 hours gathering newspaper articles about the size of the specimen going back to 1892. Turns out nobody cared. So I now have that time for other encyclopedic endeavors. And I wish everyone luck in getting along - my own opinion is that ANI is not a community - it is a horror show with almost no rules, and a terrible way to treat volunteers. With time I will erase these hateful things from my memory. My best. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lightburst. Thank you for coming here to discuss it with me, and for writing this thoughtful explanation of your views. For those watching, the prompt for this message was that I saw Lightburst post some comments at ARS, and gave him some (hopefully) friendly advice that he might be (unintentionally) violating his topic ban.

About me supposedly "going after" that other editor, here is the (recent memory) diff of what I first posted at ANI, expecting it to be my only comment about it: [40]. My talk page watchers can decide for themselves whether or not I was "going after" anyone. Then, in response, the other editor to whom Lightburst refers replied to that comment of mine, personalizing it about me, dredging up diffs from the past, misrepresenting them, and making personal attacks on me. And yes, I replied to that ([41]).

Anyway, Lightburst, that's good that you are finding ways to enjoy your editing away from deletion discussions. That's always a good thing to be able to do, after all. I disagree with a lot of what you say in your comment here, but I don't want to dwell on that unless you want me to explain further. I do think that you need to be careful that you really understand what you are restricted from, and that you need to avoid seeing ARS, and those with concerns about it, as us-versus-them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd strongly advise against ever putting your Chum in the water... Wikipeida can be a cruel place. But glad to see I'm not the only one with a short memory. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

right? I always try to work with people even after they have been unkind. Some kind of character flaw I have. Some people I hang onto the hate and bear grudges. I give it three tries, like I did in that diff I sent. And Tryptofish, I am not some kind of AfD nut. I found that I enjoyed the pressure of improving the article with a time limit. I already wrote an article yesterday: Circle the wagons (idiom), and in the past month about 30 articles. See you guys around on the project. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I should know better than to post on your page or respond to you in any way. It will not happen again. You can stay off my talk page from now on and I will do the same. Happy editing. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This was about: [42]. So it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (1)

Thanks for fixing that on my talk page. I'm on very sporadically now so I don't catch things but that would have annoyed me as well. You are very free to make MOS alterations to my talk page. I respect you and you have earned my trust. I will probably rethink the layout when I fully return or if I get in that mood to do so before. I have to get my mind in the right frame for the long winter though so I will be on less and less over the next few days and weeks. --ARoseWolf 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome, and I was happy to do it. Have a great winter! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you be willing to launch the RfC?

Hi Tryptofish,

I appreciate you being a voice of reason and neutrality over at the ArbCom talk page. Reading your latest comment about the possibility of a new RfC, it occurred to me that perhaps the best option would be for you to launch it yourself. Given that recent attempts by Ferahgo [43] and Gardenofaleph [44] to do just that haven't met with success, and since you seem to have a much more comprehensive understanding of what makes a consensus solid than any of us who are parties to the dispute, it seems that this is likely the best (and perhaps only) way for your suggestion to really proceed as you've outlined it. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. (For talk page watchers, it's about this; scroll down to where you see me in the discussion.) I'm more than happy to give advice, and I was motivated to give advice here, partly because my wiki-friend MPants was dedicated to the subject but has stepped back from editing en-wiki, plus I have a lot of respect for DGG. But, myself, I'm trying to stay away from too much involvement in contentious stuff (see my user page). So I really don't want to play a primary role in constructing or launching the RfC, sorry. I'll certainly give an opinion in it after it launches. Beyond that, I'm willing to respond to questions and give advice during the construction phase, so it's fine to ask me what to do on a particular issue that comes up. But I'd rather not put myself out there as the person in front. If you want to see what a super-sized version of such an RfC looks like – way more than what you need here! – I'll toot my own horn by pointing to WP:GMORFC (the consensus from that has lasted years!). Perhaps it will give you some ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood! Thanks for the thoughtful response. To be clear, I don't think NightHeron or I or any of the other consensus defenders can launch it either. As you can probably tell from the tone of the conversation over at ArbCom, it's unlikely that any RfC we launch will be accepted as legitimate by opponents of the consensus no matter how many best practices we follow. This will be up to either those opponents or else an uninvolved editor who's willing to step up to do –– and I imagine that the process would be much healthier for the project if it were the latter. In any case, I appreciate where you're coming from here and I thank you again for your suggestions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe ask DGG? (You can point him to here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that DGG is against the idea of a new RfC too [45]. In any case I really would prefer to see this done by someone without a stated allegiance to either side. Regarding bickering, it's a difficult situation to see allegations being flung around so casually, without evidence, on such a high profile forum without responding. With the recent descent into outright conspiracy theory by at least one opponent of the consensus [46], I'd suggest that NightHeron should be forgiven for responding at length. But I am, of course, involved in the content dispute myself, so perhaps I'm not seeing things as an outside observer might. Any further advice you might have to give about how best to handle things would be most welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, thanks for asking. I was actually thinking of saying the following a few days ago, but now I definitely think it applies even more. There's no rush for an RfC. I proposed it on the basis that it's (obviously) preferable to the (insert facepalm) that is going on now. But if a lot of the most interested parties don't want to do it now, then there's no urgent need. After all, without a change in consensus, the status quo remains in effect. If others want instead to carefully research sources, that's fine. If anyone wants to continue sniping, just stay out of it. I've come to think that, although the ideal RfC would be drafted collaboratively by both "sides" together, it's better to let the people who disapprove of what they see as the current consensus draft it when they are ready, and therefore to "own" the RfC that results. The more they procrastinate, the more one can say "let's settle this with an RfC". For you and I, as a hypothetical example, to go forward with an RfC now, would be wasted effort. If others want things to change, then let them do the initial work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I very much appreciate hearing your perspective. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rigged election! Rigged election!

Well, no.

But User:Tryptofish/ACE2021. Vote early and often. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again today, in the context of my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. I mentioned you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bits

"I'm selling some of those bits on ebay."

I may entertain the idea if those bits come with chips. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For those wondering, we're talking about [47] and [48]. I figure it's time for me to cash in on Wikipedia. As for whether I was also making a double entendre... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, did you say you want to eat fish and chips? No eat fish! No eat fish! Help! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is this place called the Bamboo Room in Haines that makes the best fish & chips. We are way past "no eat fish". lol Just wanted to have a little fun with you, Tryp. Thanks for indulging me.--ARoseWolf 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether we're talking food, or double entendre, got me looking for this. Alas, Anthony Bourdain is much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good, I got you thinking and reminiscing over something cherished. That's the real gem from all of this and the joy I get out of it. Thank you for sharing! --ARoseWolf 20:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Get back in the attic, Miss Wikihavisham! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all around. It looks as though I was successful at monetizing my bits, even if it got a bit nasty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That's spinnerbait not spinster, Martinevans123. Should have known you would go after something shiny, even if it digital, Tryp. :) --ARoseWolf 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for your Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 Voter Guide

Hello Tryptofish, I would like to thank you for publishing and providing your voter guide for Arbitration Committee Elections 2021 at User:Tryptofish/ACE2021. It has been very helpful and useful to me in learning about the pros & cons of all the different candidates with respect to their suitability for Arbitration Committee. It had proper detailed analysis and rationale on every candidate and helped me in voting informatively. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheGeneralUser: And thank you very much for the kind words. Although I nearly didn't bother to write a guide this year, I decided at the last minute to do so and am glad that I did. It means a lot to me when other editors find my guide helpful, so I'm very glad to hear that. I attempt to be reasonably polite in what I say about each candidate, and to write it in a manner that I hope provides useful information about suitability, rather than to simply harp on a pet peeve or responses to a single question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I liked your guide and it's my guess it will fairly accurately reflect the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this full analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you very much as well. Given that there were 11 running for 8 seats, I suspect that this will be a year where it will be pretty easy to have some matching between guide supports and the actual results. But, as I say every year in my guides, it's not my purpose to predict the outcome, and I don't much care whether I do or not. I'm really focused on the suitability (or lack thereof) of the candidates. As a matter of fact, I had already been looking at your analysis, and was interested in the concentration of voting on the first day. I haven't yet looked much at my guide's page views, but if I read your graph correctly, even though my views over time were not very high, I seem to have had a very large peak on that first day of voting, when perhaps it mattered most (or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's not a lot to predict. It's more a question of who will be the three who don't get in, thus the result is going to be fairly obvious. Not a healthy sign for this kind of election or the future performance of Arbcom where there are barely enough candidates to fill the seats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a real possibility of people getting onto the Committee who probably should not be there. (I'll bring the popcorn.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the main risk and it does happen (in my opinion) each year there is a low ratio of candidates to vacant seats. Perhaps the election should be restructured to get more candidates. For example, have the community nominate candidates, those who don't want to run could remove themselves from the list, and then hold run off elections. Just an idea... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda

		Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda
		So here's some Jingle Wings and some Jingle Navidad Cubana and some Bryn and some Crickmore:Crewe just for you!! Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Diolch, Martin, a'r un peth i chi! (I think!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm well impressed, Trypto."You put the suck in Abersychan"! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suck at a lot of things. Sialciwch hi i fyny i Google translate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Peidiwch byth â methu, gwers bob amser." (... my life at Wikipedia). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "tidy darts"

Do give my best wishes to Bob (Bob Amser). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think he and I are related. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and a half-sister for Hanner Amser, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm allegedly half-fish. (I'm actually half American, and half human.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You put the fish in Fishguard... and the cod in Betws-y-Cod... and the ray in Rayader! --Dan Fish 123 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Coddy McCodface was a, um, member of Greenpeace, but formed the splinter group Codpeace to protect the Atlantic cod.^{[cetacean needed]} --Tryptocod
Piece, bro! Atsme 💬 📧

And I may or may not put the cod in cod-peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be spelled "piece"? Atsme 💬 📧 19:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. But that's what I blue-linked it to. (And many of the images in the Commonscat for that topic are quite amusing.) And, a whole lot of Nadolig llawen or whatever that is, to you, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

My naieveté is showing. . I'll recipricate with words most familiar to our en.wikipedia - Be merry and safely enjoy the holiday spirits! 🍻 Atsme 💬 📧 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And may the next year be a lot better than the one that's ending. And I hope your house-move is reaching or has reached a satisfactory completion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Tryp - it already promises to be! As for the house-move, it probably would have been easier had I actually been able to move the house to the new ranch. I still have two more rooms to go with a deadline of Jan 12th on my extended lease. I'm thinking 1 day to pack/move it, and a month to unpack/place it. Once that's done, I can get started on decorating the bar/stage/entertainment area in the barn. Atsme 💬 📧 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If your nativity is showing, you're probably best off getting a stable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to be embarrassed about, it happens to everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Thanks, and a great big ROARRR back to all of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year|

I hope the new year is treating you well. I noticed that Yoga nidra is up as a GA nomination, and since you are one of my favorite scientific skeptics that I respect and I admire, I thought I should consult you in advance of even taking this nomination. On first glance, it appears somewhat problematic in terms of its health and medical claims in the context of science. I’m not asking you to devote any kind of time to this, but rather a cursory look of about a minute. My spidey sense tells me this could be a problem, and maybe shouldn’t be up for a nomination. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words, and of course, best wishes for the New Year to you too!

I've looked at the article, and I'll try to identify the issues as they apply to GA criteria, without actually making a conclusion about whether or not it should pass GA. First, I think there is some WP:PEACOCK language that could easily be toned down: "among the deepest possible states of relaxation" in the State of consciousness section needs to be preceded to "said by its practitioners to be". And "single-observation study of a famous yogi" in the Scientific evidence section needs to lose "famous".

I think the central issue is that all of the claims about health effects need to have sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS. Some of it is simply cited to non-independent sources from the yoga community, and needs to be presented as assertions made by practitioners, rather than as fact. Of the content that is cited to scientific journals, most of it is to very small primary source studies (very small in terms of numbers of people), and MEDRS requires secondary sources, reviews of the literature. I think there is only one fully MEDRS-compliant review, which is source 16, Parker (2019). MEDRS can still permit cautiously-worded content cited to primary sources, but it needs to make clear that the evidence is preliminary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I invited the user to this discussion in the hopes that they could fix the issues before anyone starts the review. Although I consider myself a people person in public, for some reason, my skills don’t translate well into text on Wikipedia, and I think you could communicate the issue with the editor far better than I can. Thanks for taking a look. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it from the point of view of scientific caution. The article is not at all salesy but I can certainly make it clear what is yoga-talk and what is tentative evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Only Half

"I'm allegedly half-fish. (I'm actually half American, and half human.)"

Well, if that isn't a tabloid scandal I don't know what is. There must be some reason to take this to the drama boards.

Touching my Talk Page again too. Trypyfish really knows how to make the girls blush.

Hope you have an amazing year ahead of you, my friend. --ARoseWolf 18:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you, too! (And if anyone really wants to blush...) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (3)

	The Original Barnstar
	For moving the convos on User talk:ARoseWolf to be within the styling. Honestly I would be doing it myself however lately I haven't been feeling the best and haven't had much time to do minor things like that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words – and get well soon! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been doing my best. The thing I'm mostly worried about is that I may somehow have CoVID, despite me having gotten the vaccine, mainly because some of my other classmates who went on the band trip to the Alamo Bowl have gotten CoVID since returning home. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite understandable. For what it's worth, because you are vaccinated, it's unlikely that COVID would make you seriously ill. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Very sage and sound advice offered. You know all to well how these things typically go whether you respond to the case or not. Maybe with new arbitrators it will be different. You are correct that if you do not participate it will most likely end poorly for the accused. In most cases I would say to fight but if the results are equal then fighting may have delayed the end result but ultimately you suffer from more wounds along the way. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you saw what I wrote, and the less that I say further about it, at least here, the better. I feel rather sad about the whole thing, but, what can one do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. And it's okay not to talk about it. You don't have to. I know. I share in the sadness you feel. One is quite limited in what they can do about things outside their control (circle of influence) but no one can limit our own compassion and kindness directed at others. --ARoseWolf 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (4)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

Whatever the result of the ArbCom case, your neutrality, open-mindedness, and concern for the principles related to this case is sure to have a positive effect on its resolution. I look forward to coming across your signature in the future, hopefully in less heated environments. I see on your user page that you have dabbled in retirement, but I'm glad you stayed long enough to help out this time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, especially considering that my evidence has been somewhat critical of you. Let me put it this way: like most ArbCom cases, this one is far too full of editors simply trying to say that everyone on the other side is bad. And that's not good. Anyway, I hope that you will find the feedback you have been getting as a result of the case to be a learning experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

While it has been critical of me, it does paint a better, more complete picture of what's been going on. Additionally, I see the criticisms as professional ones and not personal ones so they don't bother me, especially seeing how they're (in my opinion) deserved. I'm certain that I will learn much more from the case as it progresses, although the whole way here has been filled with lessons. Hopefully my future endeavors here will involve less dispute resolution, and I think my involvement with the WikiCup and increased work at FAR is a good forecast for that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of us aren't saying everyone on the other side is bad. I'm saying the whole topic area is a toxic battleground, and nothing good can happen until that's addressed. We can't get community action against an editor using a (intentionally vague here) source they have a COI with to coat rack negative information into BLPs, and going so far as inserting that negative information into other BLP articles. As soon as any of that is brought up at a noticeboard a group of editors starts calling it a witch-hunt, hurling insults and attacks, and assuming the "other side" are a bunch of pro fringe editors, likely because there are a lot of pro fringe editors they've had to deal with. That's why it's at arbcom. Even just some decent principals and DS would help immensely. Being able to go to AE and post some diffs of poor behavior and get some sort of structured discussion would be huge. And, for the most part, incivility and attacks are tolerated far less at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SFR, I've really just gotten to know you recently, and it's unfortunate that it's been via the inevitable unpleasantness of an ArbCom case. From what I can tell, you are very smart and have a good sense of humor, two things that I like a lot, and I hope that in better times ahead, we will end up as wiki-friends. That said, I'm going to do something I'm known to do with my wiki-friends, which is to tell you the unvarnished truth as I see it. Whether you meant to or not, yes, you have been saying (in effect) that everyone on the other side is bad. All of your evidence is of what you think is bad behavior, and there is precious little about extenuating circumstances or context. And you've been reacting to every rebuttal (including mine) with a give-no-ground tit-for-tat. The impression that gives is of a partisan who wants ArbCom to resolve a content dispute in your favor. You complain about "stonewalling", but what I see in that evidence is a dispute that you lost because consensus was against you and you failed to convince other editors. They were not stonewalling, but just telling you what they think, and you didn't like what you heard. If things go the way they're supposed to, ArbCom is going to decline to overturn the consensus to your liking. But I know from long experience that things often go off the rails in ArbCom cases, with sad results. I have a bad feeling, as I just told Celestina in the talk section below, that they are going to site-ban Roxy.

You said that you'd like to have DS, so things could be brought to AE. There are already DS for pseudoscience, so that's already available within that topic area. But if you want DS for "skepticism", I'd suggest that you propose on the Workshop page how to define that topic area. That would be a very good idea, one that I could support. But I, for one, don't have a clue as to how to define that topic area. I suppose it could be BLPs about skeptics and their detractors, but we already have DS for all BLPs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What I was writing below while you wrote that almost works as a response. Know that I have no ill will towards any participants, even Roxy, whose been nothing but mean in every interaction with me. Look at my discussion with Alexbrn on my talk page. I'd consider us on good terms, despite my posting some of their diffs as evidence. As far as it being a content dispute, I really don't edit much in the skeptic area, and I've stayed fairly clear of whatever the article I used for stonewalling evidence. There's no article I'm seeking to change here, just editor behavior that's contrary to policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So Roxy has been nothing but mean to you, and yet you have no ill will. Pardon me if I roll my eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been on the internet far too long to give a shit about mean words in text. Someone that traveled 2000 miles to come to my wedding was originally someone I had "strongly worded" arguments on irc with. I don't care that Roxy is a dick, or acts like a dick. If he hadn't blocked me from his talk page I would give him the same expression of concern and hope you did over the chemotherapy disclosure, and it would be heartfelt. I'm old enough to realize that you don't always get along with everyone, and a handful of interactions is not the measure of a person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to date myself a bit, back in the early 90s, on a MajorBBS, there was a guy who was my absolute enemy. We were constantly antagonistic to each other, griefed each other in Swords of Chaos and Tradewars, and generally didn't get along. Until we did. He ended up being one of my closest friends for over a decade. Mean words in text are no reason to hold actual, real world, bad will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Either you aren't bothered by it, or you are making a big deal about it at ArbCom. But you can't have it both ways. And no, you don't need to WP:LASTWORD me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply, cause you went and hit me with the ol' last word, but alas, I'm going to be that guy. I am more than capable of, on one hand, of bearing no ill will to someone and not being personally bothered by their words, and on the other hand, recognizing that their behavior is bad. The two are not exclusive.

Sorry for being that guy and replying after WP:LASTWORD was invoked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

[49] and here's this so you can see what I've been aiming for since I first got involved. I think with the arbcom case things are likely to end up with stronger consequences for those involved. If the area weren't such a battleground this whole hullabaloo could have been resolved with some voluntary restrictions and a handshake. Or the person with the COI had said "I won't do that anymore," instead of attacking other editors with legitimate, good faith concerns, they wouldn't be in front of arbcom with dozens of diffs of bad behavior on the evidence page. The skeptic POV is, for the most part, the default POV of the encyclopedia, so there's plenty of sympathy and forbearance for skeptic editors. If any path other than "there will be no compromise" were taken, we wouldn't be here. And if this type of editing were done by almost any other POV, or group, or however you want to classify it, they would be blocked already. They were in a unique position to give a little ground and be fine with it, instead everyone's time is being wasted, and there's a fair chance we'll lose one or more editors in the topic area, if not more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume that you didn't see my reply until after you posted that additional part. I've deliberately not posted anything on the case pages that would "defend" the GSoW editors who were the original named parties, for much the same reasons you point out here. What I have done on the case pages is differentiate between policies and guidelines. COI and canvassing are guidelines; civility is a policy, but one that has never had agreement about what it means. On the other hand, socking/meatpuppetry, edit warring, and BLP violations are policy. I hope the focus will be on violations of those things. But if it gets into COI that was declared but not enough, notices on boards that might or might not have been canvassing, and huffy comments in talk, there is the likelihood of bad outcomes. I've thought hard about whether things would be different if the POV were something the opposite of skepticism. Yes, it would be different, but I think that's appropriate. The NPOV policy makes skepticism the house POV, but that's consensus, not some kind of cabal thing. Now if some users are making BLP violations and using skepticism as a fig-leaf, that's what ArbCom should be looking at. And when the discussion devolved to where some pro-skeptic editors thought there was a "witch hunt", they were reacting too bluntly to criticisms that were also too blunt. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Darn it! I should've started drafting my proposed findings before evidence ended, now you've got a head start... I disagree with some of your base assumptions as to the case, but am looking forward to discussing them on the workshop after I write a good reply. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ha! I just started working on it, in a subpage of my sandbox, earlier today, and I waited to post it for the private evidence summary to come out. But then I figured go for it. I've admittedly got an itchy trigger finger, but the Workshop is open for a week. Of course, feel free to post your own proposals, and/or respond to mine in the comments by parties sections. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say a few things on this thread. Tryp, avert your eyes if you don't want to read me boasting on you. The barnstar is very deserved but does not adequately describe Tryp's contribution. I have a lot of people I respect on Wikipedia but very few Wiki-friends. Tryp is one of the few. We probably don't agree on everything but I don't want friends that simply agree with me. That would be boring. Tryp is honest and speaks plainly but not brutal in his delivery even when I know he is annoyed or upset. That makes me respect him more. He isn't perfect, none of us are. But he tries to be better and shows great compassion. I think he deeply cares about the people here behind the encyclopedia. He makes being a part of this community fun, even when he critiques you. I'm glad we met and personally I am honored to call him friend. Okay, enough mush, back to your regularly scheduled programing. --ARoseWolf 13:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm almost at a loss for words (but, of course, that's only almost). I cannot possibly thank you enough for saying that. And back at you, I can always count on you to be one of the kindest and most considerate people around here. But what you described is just about exactly what I aspire to be like on Wikipedia – not what I think I am, but what I set as a goal to work towards. That someone would think that I actually achieve it is my fondest wish, so again, thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Almost feel like you deserve a "Distinguished Barnstar of Diplomacy" in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much! (I'll settle for cash, wink, wink.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Communicating with established knowledgeable editor

Coming from Bishonen TP, this comment scared me, I’m a little too preoccupied to do read through every entry at the Case page, but please what exactly do you mean by “lose us some good editors” I note both ScottishFinnishRadish & Roxy the dog are listed as involved parties, and these are editors I have respect for, are they likely to get into any trouble? Please could you explain this to me? Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the context that I'm sure Bish understood implicitly is the way that the ArbCom Medicine case caused us to lose RexxS. In this case, the person I am especially worried about is Roxy; if you look at his talk page, you can see what I've been saying to him. And yes, I am very worried. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understood you were alluding to RexxS, compare [50], and to Roxy. Of course. Bishonen | tålk 22:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

Indeed. And speaking of nothing, a few nights back I watched Midsommar, and now I'm scared to death of Swedish people. Swedish fire-breathing lizards, no problem, but people. Just about gave me diarrhea on the sofa! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

May I worry with you, Tryp? I only know RexxS through you and Gerda exposing me to his contributions but the very first real ArbCom case I read through was his and then I kept hearing of others so I dug into the archives (I like to read and absorb information) and, sure enough, found others. I may not necessarily agree with the actions of those brought before ArbCom but I rarely felt that those actions warranted the response given to them. I don't blame the arbitrators, per se. These issues are more to do with the mechanisms and results of the process. How many cases, like the one going on now, resulted in no casualties, no loss and no harm? I can't help but feel the foreboding doom from the dark clouds building on the horizon. Can there be a rainbow at the end? I just don't know. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: one of the Arbs said at acceptance of the case To all parties: this case is one where it is possible I won't vote for any sanctions; I can see us acting to clarify the bounds of what is acceptable and what is not (possibly with the benefit of private evidence) without stern remedies. [51] This may still come true. I think they made a mistake in apparently broadening the scope and all of a sudden declaring Roxy the dog a named party, but perhaps they will pull back a bit from that now. In any case, I retracted my evidence because I realize now that it doesn't belong there and that I made a mistake in bringing it there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Apaugasma, I don't fault someone for bringing evidence once a case is open. You added what you thought was correct and then retracted it once you felt you made an error. I am in no position to judge whether that was an error or not and you certainly owe me no explanation. Maybe they will and maybe they won't pull back. I find it very hard to get the beans back in the can without a little dirt once they are spilled. We all could go back into our own history and probably point out different situations when we acted uncivil towards others, even to the point where in some situations it had become chronic and we had to be told to step away. I have always battled with extremes both ways because it is so easy to let the pendulum swing freely. My experience this past year with cancer has not so much changed my view on things as renewed my dedication to the principles that I firmly believe in. Funny how those situations tend to do that to us. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom - the incivility issue

Hi Tryptofish! I see that you quoted me on the ArbCom workshop page, conveying my position that I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case. While that remains very much true, I feel that it should not be ignored that I followed that up with What I do want, however, is an acknowledgment of the fact that there indeed is a civility problem, and that it needs to be addressed. If there is no such acknowledgment, if indeed the problem will just continue, I do think that sanctions would become appropriate at some point.

Since I posted my evidence, two editors have already made unsubstantiated comments about my competency, one editor calling my evidence flawed "reasoning" without even attempting to explain why this should be so, and another telling me if you want to debate, learn how to do it first. In itself this is really nothing, and perhaps even to be expected in the context, but what I'm trying to show with it is how the broader pattern just continues. The common thread here is a habit of repeatedly and aggressively asserting that other editors are unable to reason correctly, without substantiating these assertions and without a real willingness to investigate or defend their accuracy. The irony, of course, is that this is itself a fallacy (proof by assertion), and indeed one of the ad hominem variety. Ever since Jimmy Wales used the words "lunatic charlatans" to fend off an actual and dangerous fringe organization, some editors have felt it their right to frame anyone they disagree with as pro-fringe, and to simply assert that they are pushing crazy ideas and unable to make a logically valid argument.

Look, I'm really not one to complain of such things if they happen once or twice. But it's so habitual, so ingrained, that it creates a toxic editing environment. And this does hurt the encyclopedia. Competent, productive editors like Bilorv [52], like myself [53], are being chased away from the topic area. I know not how many others, especially newbies, will not even try to edit an article again after being so unduly derided and ridiculed the first time around. It also skews article content: contrary to a widespread rumor, Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. The scientific skeptic or activist atheist POV of individual editors is not always identical to the POV of mainstream academic sources. I've seen it happen more than once that experienced editors presuppose they know what the sources are saying, and are simply not willing to have an honest look at them. The result is that they'll push inaccurate and/or undue article content, while at the same time ridiculing a perceived pro-fringe editor for pointing to accurate and/or due content in the sources.

I fully understand your concern about losing valuable editors over a heap of drama. I don't want that. But I think that you're failing to consider that we equally risk losing valuable editors by allowing this rampant toxicity and POV-pushing to continue. In the long term, trying to prevent the former without trying to prevent the latter will not work. We need to stop closing our eyes to uncivil behavior until it becomes so bad that editors get banned, or retire because they come to perceive the slightest push-back against their behavior as an intolerable impugnment (this is what I believe happened to MjolnirPants). Even if we manage to keep the uncivil ones on board, it won't do to ignore all the good ones they tossed in the water. But really, if we could stop the tossing itself, all problems would be solved at once, and this is what we should really aim for. We should do everything we can to avoid sanctions, but never at the expense of allowing the problem to continue.

I believe that you yourself are not editing in the skepticism/fringe area, nor on religious topics, another subject area which shares a large part of the same editor base. What I'm doing above is trying to give you a perspective from within these subject areas. Maybe one has to see the incivility happen, the editors being chased away, the content being skewed (I should hasten to add that this aspect is perhaps rather minor), the enormous amounts of time needed at the talk page to set that content straight, etc., to get a sense that there really is a problem. If you've got 750 words on the ArbCom evidence page, there's only so much you can bring forward, so you select some of the worst you've seen. But really, it's only the tip of the iceberg. It's certainly not 'throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks'. I believe that the problem is not well perceived by many because they do not share the quixotic interest to heavily edit in these areas without having the pro- or anti-fringe goals that usually come with it, and so I'm kind of a lonely voice in this. I accept that, but I thought I'd share my perspective with you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want your flawed "reasoning" called-out, stop doing it. You are producing rubbish arguments: and that is explained why on the page you link to. If you're going to adopt the role of offensive prosecutor (which you have chosen to do), and be effective, you need to be truthful and plain, not wrong and manipulative. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I have explained myself at length at Pyrrho the Skipper's talk page, twice. One more time: if you're not willing to engage with that, that's fine. Really! But if instead you're going to continue calling it rubbish, all you're doing is reinforcing my point. You've done that enough now, so please do not follow me around with it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Before I get to the main part of my reply, I want to suggest to Alexbrn (who, by the way, is welcome here): I think it would be helpful if you could contribute on the case pages, particularly with evidence, if you can. (I'm not canvassing you to do that, but commenting in response to your comment on my talk.)

Now, to Apaugasma, I actually have been in the thick of controversial religious topic editing, just not recently. (Take a gander at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism.) I was the filing party in the ArbCom case about GMOs. And I know my way around a lot of other fraught topics, such as animal rights, and I'm plenty familiar with what happens with incivility. (In fact, a long time ago, ArbCom had a case called Incivility, and I gave evidence in that.) And you just have to look at the top of my talk page now to see that I've had some experience of my own with feeling like being driven off WP by unpleasant editors. And what my friend MPants had to deal with was far from slight.

I also didn't say "shit": I said "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks". [54]. I know you had limited word and diff counts, but you could have presented less, not more. A lot of the criticism that has been directed at you by me and by others is valid, and I stand by what I said in my own comments. Now as for your desire that there be an acknowledgment of the problem in the final decision, that's something that I fully support (as long as ArbCom doesn't get heavy-handed about it, which they have an unfortunate tendency to do). As for the editors who are members of GSoW, there is private evidence, and I'm deliberately not commenting on what I don't know. But as for the on-wiki toxic discussion environment, I'm increasingly thinking that the central failure here has been that DS, enforceable at AE, were available before coming to ArbCom, but there was something in the way of getting that utilized. ANI and COIN are simply not places where anyone has ever gotten civility concerns about experienced editors resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding something more: About skepticism and whether or not it aligns with policy here, it really is the case that WP:PSCI (which is part of WP:NPOV) is a core policy, and is basically what skepticism is usually about. Where they diverge in terms of our policies is primarily with WP:BLP, so skepticism does not justify BLP violations about people criticized by skeptics. A focus on that, along with, possibly, WP:EW, WP:SOCK, and WP:MEAT, would have been far more useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe there was some hesitancy to use pseudoscience DS for the COI. Also, I don't think that psychics fall under pseudoscience DS, as they fall on the Santa Claus and his flying reindeer side of the spectrum. I'm would hope that if anyone thought the existing DS would cover this they would have mentioned it, as going to arbcom was mentioned. Even the arbs could have said "take it to AE, decline until existing dispute resolution is exhausted." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly there was some hesitancy, and that's why (as I assume you saw) I just added something about it not being used, to the Evidence page. It's true that they might be of limited use for COI, but they are tailor-made for incivility. And that would have been the place where there could have been: "you need to be more civil, and this is your final warning". Now, we're at the place for "this is the last resort for intractable problems, so we don't do warnings or admonishments, just bans and boiling in oil". ArbCom didn't say "take it to AE" because there was private evidence, that I assume was unrelated to incivility. Why no one at ANI didn't point there, I don't know, but ArbCom ought to take a look at why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case there was no reason to expand the scope. Pass a motion clarifying that the DS applies to skeptics and psychics or what have you, then open a case specifically on the COI editing to handle the private evidence. That would have been easy peasy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. At long last, I agree with you 100%.

(But they did it, given that they added you as a named party in addition to Roxy, because of the evidence in your case request statement, I'm sorry to say. Maybe it's also my fault, because I drew attention to it, because of the notifications. Facepalm Let's blame it on the reindeer, ok? I never trusted that Rudolph character.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't really understand why I was added as a party, other than as a preemptive word and diff limit extension. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless they have some deep dark secret why they're going to stick it to you (not really), it's because someone decided that you had a lot of evidence that they wanted to see, so they gave you that extension. And it follows that they added Roxy because they were interested in your evidence about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism is both a specific philosophical position (closely related to positivism: roughly, the idea that only empirically verifiable things and logic, not coincidentally the two things needed to do science, 'really' exist) and a type of activism. WP:PSCI is an editorial policy within an encyclopedia that is designed to make sure that pseudoscience and fringe topics are represented from the mainstream point of view (perhaps we should rename NPOV to MPOV? 'mainstream' is in its own way ambiguous, but perhaps less so than 'neutral'). To conflate these two, or even to suggest that they always share the exact same goals, would be seriously mistaken. While BLPs may be the most visible place for issues to arise, anything where philosophical questions come into play (like whether it is possible to positively affirm the nonexistence of empirically unverifiable concepts like qi, a philosophically debatable assumption that most scholars who deal with qi do not make), and especially anything where the activist goal of debunking and disparaging fringe stuff comes into play, will lead to friction between what scientific skeptic editors are doing and the proper application of PSCI/NPOV. In particular, PSCI does not trump DUE, nor IMPARTIAL, both of which scientific skeptic editors often have much incentive to ignore.

That the civility issues should have been, somehow, at AE is an excellent point. The problem is indeed that it's not immediately clear what DS it would fall under, but WP:ARBPS would probably do it. That was a mistake, and one I will be sure not to make again. While it's true that the Arbs could have done some things differently (passing a motion that DS apply to scientific skepticism and fringe, broadly construed, would be helpful), this is really my fault. I have retracted my evidence accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion

"Specific philosophical position" well, yes and no. Philosophically, like everything, it can be classified, but philosophy is also doomed to do so for everything at the same level. Outside of the human mind's games and labyrinths is reality (the real world) and a main goal of the scientific method is to attempt to assess it. It is reasonable to admit that we may never have an answer to everything, but skepticism is an important part of that method, so are systems to defeat the natural fallacies and illusions of scientists. As a path to knowledge it is quite successful and to describe what is best called "the real world" as "only a materialist position" is a false equivalence between the "metaphysical positions". Philosophical arguments are also among the favorite of apologetics who want to insist that we don't know anything, a type of nihilism to justify that all beliefs are equal... I hope that it's not what you mean by IMPARTIAL, it would be misrepresenting it. Pseudoscience for instance, is simply something that is not science but is presented as such. For Wikipedia, it's even simpler: if we have decent sources that describe a topic as such, WP:PSCI should be applied. If some decent sources also dispute that, it can also be mentioned. We don't have to deal with the demarcation problem ourselves. —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I'm not discussing the philosophical merits of scientific skepticism, which would be interesting in itself, but not what's relevant here. What's relevant is that, like all philosophical systems, it takes a number of positions which go beyond what is indeed philosophically debatable (since in principle everything is) but still near-universally accepted as indisputable. The trouble is that proponents of scientific skepticism often do not distinguish between what is near-universally held to be indisputable and what they as scientific skeptics regard as indisputable. They tend to assume that these two categories overlap entirely, which is not the case. The idea that reality is exclusively located outside of the human mind, for example, is a typical skeptic/positivist premise. I'm not arguing that this premise isn't true, I'm not even arguing that it is not held to be true by a majority, I'm merely arguing that it's not one of those things which are near-universally held to be indisputably true (like, e.g., logic, mathematics, or even empirical facts as induced from repeated sensory input). What is 'really' real or not is a notorious philosophical problem, lying at the basis of one of its main branches (ontology), and precisely the subject of much dispute. Reliable, academic sources that do not have any philosophical axe to grind will not normally take strong ontological positions. We live in a culture that strongly epistemologizes things: what matters is what we can know, not what is. If, for example, they are talking about something scientific, what counts is that the phenomenon is empirically observable and that the results of this observation fit into a logically coherent theory. Whether any of it is 'real' or not is a question that is not even posed. When such sources are talking about pseudoscience, the relevant determinations are that despite purporting to be scientific, there is no empirical evidence for it, and/or that it's impossible to fit into existing and accepted scientific theories. Again, whether it is 'real' or not is a philosophically loaded question that doesn't even need to come into play. For this type of sources, occam's razor dictates that they don't need to wade through complex ontological problems if it doesn't add anything to the analysis. Not so for scientific skeptic sources. These routinely and casually imply that things for which there is no empirical or scientific evidence are not real, imaginary, do not exist, etc. This is largely for rhetorical reasons: saying that something is imaginary is a good way to discredit it, which is a core goal for scientific skeptic sources. It works much better than to merely say that there is no scientific evidence for something. There is no scientific evidence for many things: for the existence of God, for the existence of good and evil, for the truth of mathematical axioms, or even for the existence of a set of such axioms that is both complete and consistent. As is evident from the preceding list, things also quickly get very complicated that way. But of course, apart from rhetorical reasons, there's also just the scientific skeptic conviction that when there's no scientific evidence for something, that means it's imaginary. Nothing wrong with that. But as should be clear by now, this is a very specific position that cannot and normally is not taken to be indisputably true. What's relevant for Wikipedia here is that regular mainstream academic sources do not normally wade into the deeps of ontology, while scientific skeptic sources make strong ontological assumptions not generally found elsewhere. This also means that these two types of sources will write in a different tone. The tone that we should follow, naturally, is that of the mainstream academic sources. This is a basic question of WP:DUE. But what mainstream academic sources themselves are doing in not taking strong ontological positions is also more directly required from us by WP:IMPARTIAL: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. IMPARTIAL also points out that inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Basically, the kind of framing done in scientific skeptic sources, which is aimed at persuading the reader of a certain POV, is inappropriate on WP, even independently of issues of DUE. But the rhetoric of 'not real', 'does not exist', 'merely imaginary', etc. is adopted wholesale by some editors, which in most cases is extremely unencyclopedic. It violates both DUE and IMPARTIAL, and it's this that I was referring to above when I said that scientific skeptic editors have much incentive to violate these two aspects of NPOV. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Wrong again. We use the most appropriate sources for discussing whether woo is woo, and abide by them. So stuff like "drinking bleach cures cancer" isn't accorded the long-winded dance-around you favour. We say it's rubbish just like the sources. Job done. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Now that is a strawman: where did I argue for the proposition that we should use inappropriate sources (surely not where I argued for using mainstream academic sources over skeptic blogs?), and where did I argue for the proposition that we should have a long-winded dance-around for fake cancer cures? Nowhere, of course. You're just implying that I defend these propositions, and since everyone around here strongly believes these propositions to be false (unlike, e.g., the proposition that Holocaust deniers and similar fringe-pushers are 'bad people', which is perhaps pettily framed but not untrue, and not something I or anyone here would refute), you don't even need to refute them. But the strawman you put up there and shot down is really something you need to believe I'm defending, because if I wouldn't, none of your rhetoric would work. And since I don't, it doesn't, except to the extent that others around here also believe that I'm defending these things. So what's really at stake here for you is to make others believe that I am defending these things. Once it's established I'm a fringe-pusher, no more words are needed, right? But it's impossible to have a real conversation when it is shot through with such hostile rhetoric. I get it, you were POV-pushing here (replacing a clumsy and unclear but still more or less accurate summary of the source with something that directly contradicts it), I explained precisely why to the ArbCom here, and now you think the best defense is to attack. While that is never a good idea, I retracted the evidence. You can calm down now. Maybe look at that diff and re-read the source. Maybe put up a good-faith attempt to understand why someone would object to the ontologically loaded and unsourced statement you made there as unencyclopedic, even if they personally believe the statement to be true (I do: I positively believe that qi doesn't exist). And then perhaps disagree, but agree to disagree without further attacks and aspersions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I don't know what you're doing, other than producing verbiage. You don't seem to understand logic, sourcing or the WP:PAGs so it's impossible to respond meaningfully. If sources say qi doesn't exist, so does Wikpedia, precisely because of: sourcing, logic and the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC) The source says the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. If you make of that sources say qi doesn't exist, you're misrepresenting them, right here. If you can't see that 'qi does not exist' is in direct contradiction with 'the existence of qi cannot be disproven', then you have a serious problem with understanding logic. It would appear that you have. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC) As was discussed at the time, we had sources saying qi doesn't exist (which as you admit, is trivially true). By your argument because unicorns can't be proven not to exist, we can't say unicorns aren't real. But they aren't real; they're a myth (just like qi, as our sources literally say: "myth"). Wikipedia is based on reality, whereas you seem to inhabit some elaborate personal thought system built on bogus reasoning. We're not going to be adopting it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Incidentally, we don't have sources saying that qi does not exist. The skeptic blog in the diff says that meridians are imaginary, not qi. But that indeed is trivial. The salient point is that if something can't be proven not to exist, its nonexistence simply is not a verifiable fact. Non-philosophical academic sources, as well as encyclopedias, deal with verifiable facts. That's why they don't state stuff like 'unicorns do not exist'. Stating this as some kind of serious 'fact' actually borders on the ridiculous. Furthermore, Wikipedia is based on sources, not on 'reality', and it's your personal thought system that is being mistaken for 'reality' here. But note how you're backpedaling: did you or did you not directly contradict the source in that diff? Does 'qi does not exist' contradict 'the existence of qi cannot be disproven', or not? It's a simple question really. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No, my editing was faithful and wise. Unicorns don't exist; neither does qi. Quacks insist otherwise, and base treatments on what they say and charge money for it (and do harm). Wikipedia calls out the woo to satisfy NPOV, using appropriate sources. Your invocation of a notion of "verifiable non-existsence" in this context is yet more nonsense, of the kind we hear continually from WP:PROFRINGE editors (Hmm, perhaps water has a memory but science hasn't yet found a yet to show it... You can't say this is bogus - respect my reasoning! etc! ) Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC) You misrepresent the source, defy logic, evade direct questions about it, and instead turn to more aspersions. It's the whole of your malformed argument: you're pro-fringe because what you say resembles some of the things I heard from pro-fringe editors, and since you're pro-fringe, you must be wrong somehow. But I honestly believe that some things just go over your head here. To say that something's nonexistence is not verifiable is just another way of saying that you can't prove it doesn't exist. It's what Ernst says. To infer from the unverifiability of something's nonexistence that it actually exists (a non sequitur), or that its existence should be taken as a serious possibility despite there not being a shred of empirical or theoretical evidence for it, is something else entirely. That kind of bad reasoning is the pro-fringers' game. It's not what I say. What I say is that our best source points out that qi can't be proven to not exist, and that writing 'qi does not exist' directly contradicts that. It violates WP:V, as well as WP:NPOV. The fact that you will not answer my simple question about this clearly shows that you are in denial. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I cast no aspersions. Your argument is just a variant of "we can't know anything". That not how it works (even in philosophy). If you think (in anything other than a school debate) that the non-falsifiability of something means it might be real, then good luck to you. I recommend not pursuing such eccentricity on Wikipedia mind you. Wikipedia works with accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I just found this thread, and it illustrates wonderfully what I said in the contribution linked above another telling me "if you want to debate, learn how to do it first". This is how that happened, demonstrated with two of many examples of bad reasoning by Apaugasma:

• I talked about what mistakes different profringe people make [55]
• User:Apaugasma said [56], you've heard some bad people say that and Not everyone who affirms these almost self-evident truths is one of the bad people and Again, it's not because some of the bad people like to.
• I had not mentioned any "bad people", and I do not think of those people as "bad". "Bad people" are an invention of Apaugasma, words that have been put into my mouth. They are a classic strawman. Everybody who knows that fallacy can see that. So I wrote [57], That has nothing to do with bad people (a strawman, BTW. I don't see them as bad people, they just annoy me). That was an explanation or substantiation of the "strawman" assertion.
• The response shows that the explanation fell on deaf ears: [58]: it's you who takes offense at anyone disagreeing with you, and casually represents them as being dogmatic, promoting bullshit, using bad reasoning, putting up strawmen, etc. When I am accused of bad reasoning, the last thing that would come to my mind would be to complain about the accusation. Instead, I would either plead guilty or not guilty, and, in the second case, explain why the accusation is wrong. there's also so much ad hominem I cannot find any ad hominem by me in that discussion, only 1. disagreement and 2. criticism of reasoning. So, unless I overlooked something despite checking twice, the accusation of "ad hominem" is either a lie, or a careless oversight, or it demonstrates that Apaugasma does not understand what "ad hominem" means.
• Change of venue to my Talk page: [59] :When I tell someone that they have used a fallacy, such as a strawman, then the correct response is either, "you are right, that was bad reasoning" or "you are wrong, it was good reasoning because [..]" and not "Waaah! You accused me of bad reasoning! That is ad hominem!" Of course, pointing out the bad quality of someone's reasoning is the exact opposite of ad hominem. Go read the article, you don't know what the term means. That was an explanation or substantiation of what I asserted. From my previous exchanges with you, I have no expectation that you will learn anything from what I am saying here. I expect you will complain about it instead.
• This is exactly what happened! Uncanny! Instead of clearing up the question or of silently accepting the reprimand and trying to get better at discussions, Apaugasma came here and complained about me teaching her/him about how discussions work. The claim above two editors have already made unsubstantiated comments about my competency and without substantiating these assertions is either a lie, or a careless oversight, or it demonstrates that Apaugasma is not competent or willing to understand the arguments of opponents. I had substantiated my accusation of using a strawman as well as my accusation of not understanding what "ad hominem" means. If one cannot follow an explanation, one should ask for clarification.

That behavior is typical: When accused of bad reasoning, Apaugasma will deflect, evade, and counterattack (often by running to someone else and complaining) instead of either admitting to have been wrong in that one point, or asking for clarification, or explaining why the accusation is wrong. That behavior is unacceptable. It is not possible to have meaningful discussions with this user until that changes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Apaugasma has retracted the evidence and will move the discussion elsewhere where it's more relevant. Adding this after the conversation is more or less done just to get a dunk on another editor is not constructive nor helpful to collaborative editing. It might boost your ego, but that's about it. Making the conversation longer just to get your last word in helps none of us, and in fact increases the uncivil atmosphere pointed out in the arbcom case in which you are currently participating. I just found this thread, and it illustrates wonderfully what I said in the contribution linked above feels just like finding a dead horse and taking out your stick. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are assuming that I knew the conversation is more or less done. I did not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling! I would take this to your talk, but since you've asked me not to comment there, let me reply here. If you go back to my comment [60] (which, incidentally, is the sharpest I made, lost my patience a bit there), and replace bad people with annoying people or pro-fringe people, would the meaning change in any way? (please try this before you read on) My point was that the mere fact that annoying/fringe-pushing/'bad' people claim something (i.e., that we should not be biased) does not, by itself, make that claim false. It's a bit like WP:CRYBLP: it's not because bad-faith editors commonly complain that we should not slander people and follow BLP, that we should say 'yes, we are slanderous, and this is the real meaning of BLP'. Likewise, it's not because bad-faith editors commonly complain that we should not be biased and follow NPOV, that we should say 'yes, we are biased, and this is the real meaning of NPOV' (that's my view anyway, and the point I was trying to make, in direct reply to yours about fringe people crying bias [61]). My use of the expression 'bad people' was perhaps unfortunate (we were talking about Holocaust deniers before, and I wanted to generalize away from that), but it is not in any way a strawman: 'bad people' do indeed claim in bad faith that we should not be biased, and I was in no way putting easily refutable words into your mouth only to go on refuting them (which is what a strawman would be: implying you think they're bad, which it would be easy to show they're not, and then indeed demonstrating that they're not bad). Rather, the expression 'bad people' may be understood as a bit contemptuous (it may imply that the fight against them is a petty affair, which it is not): I was being uncivil there.

I'm sorry that I didn't point that out the first time, but really just consider your own comment [62] here: apart from the unfounded claim that I was putting up a strawman, you were (and this is a list): calling what I said bullshit, making a red herring out of the fact that I had (again, unfortunately) used the expression "almost self-evident truths" (in reference to "scientists cannot afford to ignore the evidence" and "[scientists] should be unbiased"; the point did not depend on these things being true, but rather on their not being rendered false by bad-faith actors claiming it: replace "these almost self-evident truths" with "these things", and the point remains exactly the same –again, try this before you read on), calling me dogmatic, purporting to teach me about the right way to debate, comparing me to a creationist spouting bad reasoning, implying that I was preaching that everybody should be like me, and affirming that this wouldn't work on you. Then go back to my comment [63] to which you were replying, and see how you did not engage with the substance of anything I was trying to say (again, a list): my point about bad-faith actors claiming X not necessarily rendering X untrue, my point about NPOV itself unmistakably containing the clause that we should represent POVs without editorial bias no matter how much bad-faith actors try to subvert it, my point about the wiki-speak reappropriation of the word 'bias' not possibly being able to deplace the mainstream meaning of that word. What should I call not engaging with these substantial points and instead commenting on my personal abilities and proclivities? That's ad hominem right there. You replying that I don't know the meaning of ad hominem, don't know how discussions work, etc., is only continuing along the same line.

Listen, this I think is the crux of the matter: it's more than okay to conclude, after substantive arguments have been made on both sides, and after both sides have engaged in good faith with what the other side was trying to say, that the other side is committing themselves to some kind of logical fallacy or mistaken reasoning. What you cannot do, however, is to start with that assumption, to call it all bullshit, and at the same time not engage with anything they're trying to say. You don't show anyone anything in this way, and it would very much justified for them to conclude, as I did, that you're appealing to ridicule. It's not so difficult to avoid, especially when the other side is trying to substantiate what they're saying: just read it well, try to get to the core of their argument, think about it a bit, and directly reply to the argument itself. Concluding who's right and who's not can come later. Finally, even if your conclusion is that your opponent is mistaken, it's worth considering the exact reasons why you believe that to be the case. Most often you will find that they're starting from some different premise which you don't share. Only rarely will it be appropriate to call it bullshit. And even in that case, it doesn't need to be said that it's bullshit to show that it's bullshit. A large part of WP:CIVIL is simply to focus on the latter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all: wow! I logged in today to find 10 of those notifications at the top of the page, and some huge changes at the Evidence page at ArbCom. Also, this morning I had my second-of-two cataract surgeries, so I'm sitting here with some lovely midazolam drifting around my brain, and a huge blue bandage over my left eye, so I'm not thinking or seeing as clearly as I would like to do. Please don't anyone worry about me: it's no big deal and went well and I'm fine. And a lot less than the health issues some of my wiki-friends have been braving. But please just understand that in the context of my limited ability right now to respond comprehensively to everything on my talk page.

Apaugasma, thank you very much for the change you made in the evidence. I am very grateful for it. I also just put this on the Workshop page. I'm now vastly more optimistic (hopefully not drug-induced!) that the case will end up ok. And thanks everyone else who has commented here. (Hey, my talk page is where all the cool kids are!) I won't try to reply to everyone individually, but I'm very happy to have each of you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick and choose that for which I shall worry myself, thank you very much, dear fish. Of course I will continue to be concerned for you but I'm glad everything went well and I hope your recovery is swift. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Shall I say: here's looking at you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Mi casa es tu casa --ARoseWolf 19:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just made the mistake of reading Cataract surgery#History. Yuk! Breast milk and ghee??? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I'm doubly glad to have cheered you up on a day like this. I wish you a swift recovery! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm always happy when something that starts out as a heated disagreement finds its way to becoming a cordial resolution. All the best to you too. And I'm sure it will be swift. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear. I had felt sorry for invading your home for a sort of bar fight, but it seems you already have the popcorn out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (Drinks are on me!) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I used to drink a lot and I was the opposite of a mean drunk. I still have cases of drinks that I will most likely never drink now. Couldn't drink while I was in hospital. Just haven't picked it back up since. I'll have a cup of chilled goat's milk though. --ARoseWolf 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Help yourself to the popcorn. (And stay away from the breast milk and ghee.)--Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would never dare touch the medical necessities. Never know when you might need to help flush another cataract. --ARoseWolf 14:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd flush the folk remedies. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Might be original research but since I'm never going to try and add it Wikipedia, I've relied on quite a few "folk" remedies while living in a remote area of Alaska. Some work better than others but none of them have hurt us to my knowledge. Also, I will not be using breast milk or ghee for anything anytime soon so it's all yours. It's because I care, Tryp. --ARoseWolf 15:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You know, right after I posted that, I regretted that I had oversimplified the usefulness of folk remedies. I guess I'm a skeptic. (See, I brought this back around to the ArbCom topic!) But no ghee in my eyes for me. Everyone knows tartar sauce works better. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

would the meaning change in any way? Yes, of course it would. If you had said something different, then yes, I would have responded differently. It would still have been a strawman though, because what you depicted as the point I made was not the point I made. Adding a word can turn a true statement into a false statement. See below.

but it is not in any way a strawman: 'bad people' do indeed claim in bad faith that This is fallacious reasoning, but I don't think it has a name. In Wikipedia articles, using me as a source and adding the "bad people" thing to what I said would be WP:SYNTH. You were combining what I said with what you believe, thus making a new statement, which I did not utter and which I would refuse to sign when asked. (Replacing "bad people" with "annoying people" would change the situation only a bit, as you would have combined what I said with what I said later, still making a new statement by the nonexisting logical connection of the thing I had said and the thing I later said.) I did not say it and would not not say it, and you pretending I did is a misrepresentation. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Going back a bit, and indenting this part more to separate it from the strawman part, my point was that the demand to "follow the evidence" itself is bad - because, as I said in the same posting, it is better not [to] tell scientists what they should believe, only what they should do, and telling people what they should or should not believe is the definition of dogma. What does it matter if a scientist believes that, for example, God created the Earth 6000 years ago in seven days, if the scientist admits there is no evidence for that? As soon as the scientist lets that belief poison his research and makes mistakes because of it, then we can castigate his mistakes - but not his belief. Having a personal bias is a normal state, not having one is impossible, and there is nothing wrong with having one. This applies even to groups of people, such as the scientific community or Wikipedia.

In your essay WP:NOTBIASED, you quote the article Bias, which defines bias as disproportionately being in favor of or against something, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Note the word "usually". Cut the "usually" part to get the general definition, and you will see that in that sense, Wikipedia is biased. We are disproportionately in favor of scientific explanations because reliable sources prefer them, and disproportionately against all that other stuff in WP:YWAB because reliable sources frown on them. ("Disproportionally" relative to the general population, which has a different bias.) Using the word "bias" in this sense is completely legitimate. Using it in the narrower sense of the "usual" case is also completely legitimate, but declaring that the narrower sense is the only correct one is wrong.

I used people you call "bad" (and I call "deluded") as examples for crying bias, as a way of saying that the same reasoning can be applied for defending noxious ideas. When a kind of reasoning is applicable for justifying false statements, that is a big hint that that kind of reasoning is not really a good idea. But you somehow seemed to have got the idea that I associated crying bias with being a bad person, or that crying bias shows that someone is a bad person, or that I am "comparing" you to "bad people", or something like that. When I call that a strawman, I am saying that your depiction of my views is at odds with my views as well as with what I said, and you have no business to contradict me and say that no, it was not a strawman, and that oh yes, my views are as you described them. You do not need to actually tear down your strawman to fulfil the definition of a strawman: if it is silly enough that the reader can easily imagine how tear it down, it is one. But you actually did tear it down: Not everyone who affirms these almost self-evident truths is one of the bad people is a refutation of something I did not say.

I did not start with that assumption, and I did not call it all bullshit ("all" being the crucial part here). I see non sequitur, and I call it out. Usually, it does not need to be explained in this level of detail because most people understand that when person A says a and person B claims that person A said b, that is a strawman. If you still do not get it, then I give up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you're failing to see the logic yourself. In such a case, it is indeed useless to argue. Something about playing chess with a pigeon. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you prefer, as you put it above, to not engage with anything they're trying to say, replacing actual debate with a put-down you heard in another context, which I could have applied with far better justification but refrained from using. Fine with me, it's easier to handle. Less time wasted, opinion of you confirmed. EOD, I guess. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} I have to say, a lot of this rings true. The pattern of my interactions with Apaugasma have been like him posting a 1,000 word essay on why my favourite color is "blue", and if I respond with "sorry no, it's red" then they're like how dare you not engage with my reasoning! Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't say your favorite color is blue, I say that in one instance you picked blue over red. You also don't say "no, I picked red", or "look, what you think is blue is really another kind of red", you say "claiming I picked blue is dishonest and flawed". When I ask why that should be so, you say "because it's transparently false: my favorite color is red". When I then make a well-substantiated argument that, whatever your general proclivity for red, you did in fact in this instance pick blue, and say either engage with that in good faith, or just agree to disagree –which would be more than fine by me [64], you come following me around to tell me I should stop producing rubbish arguments, and now that I'm unreasonable and can't agree to disagree. Like one more pigeon strutting around. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC) There it is, now you too can admonish me for stooping down to your own level, and you would be right. I'd still like to respectfully agree to disagree though, if ever that would be an option.

• Hmmm. Apaugasma seems to have disagreements with Roxy, Hob, and with my essay at WP:YWAB. I wonder what the common factor is? Possibly related: [65] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Guy Macon Alternate Account: please look here. See how bias works out in wrong ways? I'm a serious, mainstream historian, and so is Ajrocke (= Alan J. Rocke; look at what he says in that RfC). No more aspersions please. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point, this discussion on my talk is increasingly becoming a content dispute (with some unhappiness about the content spilling over into the conduct of editors towards one another). That's fine to have here, I'm easy, but I would hope that ArbCom will stay out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for not throwing us out hosting us here! Today, I went for the pithy drink. Cheers! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Careful, you thould know that ith dangerouth to drink pith. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged but didn't have the time to read all of the rest yet. I'm not really interested in debating this, but my point was that it was empty argumentation and this more or less confirms it: "I'm not arguing that this premise isn't true". To me the above is a philosophical uncertainty argument to entertain the possibility that something for which there is no scientific evidence may perhaps still exist at some level and coming from a religious background I've seen many similar arguments. And personal convictions are fine, the important is to not let that interfere with WP editing (like discarding WP:PSCI where relevant). —PaleoNeonate – 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate, that's a great answer! Let me just state that I think you're turning things on their heads when saying that questioning the premise that only things for which there is scientific existence really exist is the special ('philosophical uncertainty') argument: rather, assuming the truth of that premise is a special position, i.e., the logical positivist one, which is not shared by a majority of philosophers today (see Logical positivism#Fall), and which is not taken for granted by non-philosophical reliable sources. For example, Ernst does not grant the premise when he says that the existence of qi cannot be disproven (please note that if the premise is granted, it can easily be disproven: if there is no scientific evidence for qi, and if all things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist, then necessarily qi does not exist). As you indicate, anyone believing in God already would not be able to agree with the truth of the premise. Neither would most people believing in moral realism (i.e., that good and evil really exist). It's simply not widely granted, and it really are the personal convictions of editors here which conflict with that. It should go without saying that following sources like Ernst in not making logical positivist assumptions does not put us in any danger of discarding WP:PSCI: that's just a red herring.

But please do feel free to disagree with how solid or mainstream the logical positivist premise is! It's already so great that you at least recognize its basic logic! You can't believe how happy you've made me with that! On a related note, Hob Gadling has posted a strange message on his talk page to which I am only allowed to respond if I admit he's right. Would you please take a look at it? If I were allowed to, I would tell him that what he says is not logically equivalent is indeed not logically equivalent. Instead, it is contradictory, which is what I said (strawman, anyone?). Note that the second statement there ('Qi does not exist') needs to be read modally as 'Qi necessarily does not exist' or 'it's a proven fact that Qi does not exist' for it to be truly contradictory with 'the non-existence of qi cannot be proven', but that modality is pretty much assumed in an affirmative statement that is supposed to be factual (i.e., when we on WP say 'X does not exist' we mean 'it is a verifiable, proven fact that X does not exist', i.e., 'it necessarily does not exist'). Since Hob reacts rather badly every time I explain he's made a goof, I would seriously appreciate it if someone could just briefly confirm that it really is a goof, and that I'm not, as someone else recently implied, insane just for being conversant with basic logic.

I think that how widely granted the positivist premise (i.e., that only things for which there is scientific evidence really exist) actually is, is an excellent point to disagree on. We could just admit that more than one view on this is possible without getting uncivil about it (cf. the title of this thread), which also means we could stop arguing about it and finally leave Tryptofish's talk page in peace. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

And here we see the basic problem. Apaugasma has a POV that is held by some philosophers (and rejected by others). There is no evidence that Apaugasma is wrong, crazy, holding the POV for ulterior motives, etc. However -- and this is a key point -- Apaugasma's POV, while welcome in Wikipedia's philosophy and logic articles, is fundamentally incompatible with the overwhelming consensus among Wikipedia editors regarding how we should handle fringe views, pseudoscience, and skepticism.

Consider the following quotes:

Apaugasma:

"The idea that reality is exclusively located outside of the human mind, for example, is a typical skeptic/positivist premise. I'm not arguing that this premise isn't true, I'm not even arguing that it is not held to be true by a majority, I'm merely arguing that it's not one of those things which are near-universally held to be indisputably true (like, e.g., logic, mathematics, or even empirical facts as induced from repeated sensory input)."[66]

Apaugasma again:

"The source says the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. If you make of that sources say qi doesn't exist, you're misrepresenting them, right here. If you can't see that 'qi does not exist' is in direct contradiction with 'the existence of qi cannot be disproven', then you have a serious problem with understanding logic. It would appear that you have."[67]

Tryptofish Alexbrn: ^{(Note to self: next time, smoke crack 'after editing Wikipedia...)}

"No, my editing was faithful and wise. Unicorns don't exist; neither does qi. Quacks insist otherwise, and base treatments on what they say and charge money for it (and do harm). Wikipedia calls out the woo to satisfy NPOV, using appropriate sources. Your invocation of a notion of "verifiable non-existsence" in this context is yet more nonsense, of the kind we hear continually from WP:PROFRINGE editors (Hmm, perhaps water has a memory but science hasn't yet found a yet to show it... You can't say this is bogus - respect my reasoning! etc! )"[68]

Compare the above discussion with the source they are both talking about:[69]

"Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths. Believers cling to the myth despite the evidence, reinterpret the myth to suit the evidence, or lie about the evidence to support the myth. Even though the existence of qi can neither be proven or disproven, the related concept of a meridian system and acupoints does generate testable hypotheses..."

Whether any of us like it or not, the Wikipedia community has come to a consensus. That consensus is that we apply Hitchens's razor to all WP:FRINGE views. We treat Russell's teapot, Birds Aren't Real, Finland does not exist, Santa Claus, Qi, etc. (but not mainstream unprovable views such as Allah) as being nonexistent even though nobody has actually proved that Russell's teapot doesn't exist or that all birds in the United States weren't exterminated by the government between 1959 and 1971 and replaced by drones. An interesting sidenote is how Wikipedia treats things that (according to our consensus) do not exist despite some philosophers correctly saying that we can't prove that. Our Qi article says "The existence of Qi has not been proven scientifically" but is our article on Fundamental interaction we say "In physics, the fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist... Some scientists hypothesize that a fifth force might exist, but these hypotheses remain speculative". We do not list Qi or anything similar as being a possible Fifth force. (If present, a fifth fundamental force would most likely be 1,000-100,000 times weaker than gravity over the range 1-1000 meters. Otherwise we would have detected it already.)

So, do we need to do anything about Apaugasma's POV being fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia's POV on fringe subjects? If they were being a jerk about it (edit warring, flooding talk pages, ect.) the answer would be yes, but I have seen zero misbehavior on Apaugasma's part, so it seems to me that nothing needs to be done here other than not responding, as Hob has decided to do.

The TRUTH is out there!!!. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I see two potential problems with considering "the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven" and "sources say qi doesn't exist" equivalent: the first has no mention of sources, but also, closer would be "there is no scientific evidence for qi/that qi exists". Then of course, if it really "cannot be proven" and "cannot be disproven" it means that it is an untestable hypothesis, not falsifiable. This suggests that it is a religious doctrine, outside of the realm of science. Then this may or may not be the only definition or completely correct: if there are claims about its connection to the body, science could legitimately attempt to determine if it can be useful, detected, exploited (like with a "metaphysical meridians map", and recording statistics of effects/recovery between various methods used on a population, etc.) if the latter fails, the premise of the system's existence and/or benefits were not met (falsified hypothesis or perhaps flawed metaphysics or pseudoscience, something else claimed to be science-like). If it succeeds, science is advancing and mainstream medicine can be expected to eventually understand it better and integrate it... —PaleoNeonate – 20:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Any reply here will be reverted immediately. I mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

[70] —PaleoNeonate – 02:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to hat this, but please see the notice at the top of this talk section. And Guy Macon, you attributed a quote to me that was said by someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the error (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...), dropping the subject. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

On a mildly related note, I managed to take a bunch of blurry pictures of black helicopters circling around the apartment building I lived in, and landing on the rooftops and parking lots of nearby buildings a decade or so back. Because it was dark, and the helicopters were moving pretty quickly most of the time, all of the pictures came out like something you'd see in the Gribble Report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely queens looking for spots to nest —PaleoNeonate – 20:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (5)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your punny edit summary made me smile. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I, for one, could use a bit of wiki-humor these days. --Creepyfish (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How about this one: [71]? (I didn't use rollback, just so I could leave a summary!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that got a chuckle. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest Bilby comment

ArbCom --Tryptofish

Should I respond to him somehow at the workshop phase before it is too late? His remarks are most unfair, referring as they do to a comment I made regarding a now topic banned editor taken well out of context, in the discussion that led to the topic ban? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As I recall from the original context you were going to "confront" this guy merely by meeting him in person at a WMF event, but this got twisted in (some ridiculous) evidence into sounding like you were going to duff him up in a dark alley. My eyebrow is raised. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, by the time I logged in and saw this, it is too late. I read that comment, and I dislike it, obviously. (It's a classic case of waiting until the phase is about to close, so that there won't be time to refute it, a common trick in ArbCom cases. Heck, I've even done it myself. It's also why I hoped that you would have done more to refute evidence, before the last minute – but that's water under the bridge.) But it's just his opinion, and not binding on the Arbs. Also, his saying that doesn't blank out what I and others have already said, so the Arbs have heard both sides. I'm loathe to attempt any predictions, but from what I've read from what the Drafting Arbs have posted, they seem to be leaning against sanctions for individual editors. Now, the only thing to do is to wait for them to post the Proposed Decision. If they don't propose any sanctions against you, and no other Arbs raise the possibility during the Arbs' discussions, then you will be out of the woods. If they do propose something against you based on that incident, there is still the possibility of commenting about it on the PD talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. Alex assessment is about correct. The original statement was, if I recall correctly, a joke during an AfD discussion, and what Bilby refers to is a reference to discussion in the Topic-banning of said editor. The workshop phase is totally opaque to me btw. So, I've got my spiderman suit round my ankles and I'm lubed up ready. Roxy the dog. wooF 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please find the diff of your original joke, and the diff from the topic-ban discussion, and post the diffs for me here. Also, was there anything about your interactions with that editor that occurred by email or something similar that was not posted on-site? (Also, I looked in more detail at what Bilby posted and where he posted it, and it was in regard of a proposal to give you a warning. If the Arbs decide simply to warn you not to do it again, that would be perfectly acceptable, and you should just accept it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This also outlines one of the problems that seems to happen at the Workshop phase. When the random IP (not familiar enough with the interactions to assess WP:DUCK) only proposes one Finding of Fact for Sgerbic, but goes on to propose remedies for a bunch of others without any evidence/diffs, that proposal should be outright dismissed. I wouldn't count on that level of bureaucracy always being followed through though. You never know what might "surprise" you. Either way, it just makes it really hard to follow for those of us with very limited time, especially when you have others proposing FOF's without any diffs at all. KoA (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No emails. social media, letters, subspace messages, semaphore or telephone. I dont do off-wiki. The dramah discussion was the ARS one that led to two topic bans. Was rather unpleasant, and I referred to them as Project ARSehole, and ran the idea of topic bans up the flagpole before anybody else. I can probably find that, but as to the original, well I'll try, but my search-fu has poor rating. Roxy the dog. wooF 18:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there should ever be a case where anyone can make a claim that can't be addressed directly. There should be one "untimed down" so to speak. So long as the response sticks to the comments made and doesn't stray from them then it should be allowed. You can even put a word restriction on it. Waiting until just before the close, if in fact that was done purposefully, seems like a dirty tactic and antithetical to the intent of the overall process. No offense, Tryp, you know I love ya, for a fish human thingy anyway. :) --ARoseWolf 18:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what "untimed down" means ! -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, It's just a term used in silly American football (sorry football fans). I grew up on the real football. I just means you should be given a chance to respond within reason and under possibly limited circumstances but giving you a chance to address it with, hopefully, diffs or links. Perhaps not in your case but the thought in general. --ARoseWolf 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

When I did it, it was in a good cause, so there (and I did it to reply to someone, not to bring up something new). Roxy, I was there for the ARS stuff, and I went back and found and bookmarked those discussions, but I don't know about the AfD. I found your comment, and it is so clearly obvious that you weren't threatening anything for real, that... omg. On the other hand, calling other people ARS = arse, isn't going to get you any friends at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am grateful for the direct and straightforward nature of your advice, no pulled punches. Tis what I expected when I asked you in the first place. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I went back through all of the AfDs you participated in, back to December 2020, and I didn't find it. The only significant interactions are [72], and [73]. Would I be correct that it was more than a year ago? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I will so stick out my tongue at you so don't make me, Tryp. I'm sure you had a good reason. ;) Roxy, I remember reading the ARS AN/I case and I found the comment in question too. Obviously you weren't threatening anything. Was the comment uncivil? Yeah, I think so but I've also seen way worse than that and what I would consider actually threatening and they didn't even get so much as a trip to the dramah boards over it. I don't believe you should get sanctioned for that alone but I avoid ArbCom as a rule due to the unpredictability and I have placed a restriction on myself from responding at AN (tempted to extend that to even reading it). --ARoseWolf 19:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the Evidence page for the ArbCom case, and the only diff about this was from FeydHuxtable's evidence, and that's the diff from the ANI about ARS. Whatever was at the earlier AfD is not entered as evidence in the case, and it must not have been particularly recent, so we can assume that it will be out-of-scope for anything ArbCom will do. If necessary, it will be a matter of clarifying the ANI remark on the PD talk page, and we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom cases needed to be whittled down to Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Decision (Talk). All the formalities, $10 terminology, and overall approach takes forever and explains why these cases take so darn long. It goes beyond tedious and makes it seem like someone's about to get a lethal injection, and that includes anyone who acted in like-kind either with or against the accused. How is "culling the herd" a remedy? Atsme 💬 📧 19:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, dogs move in packs, not herds (and fish go to schools). Secondly, I'm actually a big believer that workshops are a net positive, so long as the Arbs don't let themselves get duped. But that's a disagreement for another occasion, so I'd like to wind this discussion down, and wait for the PD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I still like the approach I adopted best...Don't! I love this community and I love editing as I can and discussing edits and this idea of working together to build a community to form a consensus but it is so not worth stressing over to me. Tryp has been outstanding through this and Roxy, I might add, you have been so amazing considering the circumstances. I don't think I could have done this nor would I want to, tbh. Unwinding --ARoseWolf 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Tryp has been out standing in the rain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll never have that recipe again. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that I can take it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A fish out of water standing in water.--ARoseWolf 19:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And melting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

For all the young-uns who aren't familiar with it, the dog and the fish are riffing on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And it took so long to bake it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bishzilla: I found this version, just for you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Cladogram

Any ideas as to what the royal blue clade in this cladogram actually represents? I think maybe it's grouping them by genetic commonalities within that group, and that they share some behavioral traits and physical characteristics, and maybe also share the same or similar geographic origins? Atsme 💬 📧 18:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be able to give a much more helpful answer if I could see the context of that image, like what paper or study it was a part of, and whether there is an image caption or some explanatory text. But based on what I see there, it is probably about DNA sequencing, and showing the amount of similarity of the DNA sequence between different dog breeds. So each color probably represents a group with highly similar (homologous) gene sequences (and it's pretty obvious that it sort-of matches with groups like Herding Group, Working Group, Sporting Group, and so on). In other words, the dogs with the same colors are the ones that are most closely related to one another. But it doesn't, that I can see, tell you which came first or which was descended from the other. Those brackets with the yellow, black, and star-shaped symbols probably represent the amount of DNA sequence similarity between the two breeds. So those brackets for 90–100% show that the two breeds are very similar genetically, and those are mostly within each color group. The brackets for 50–69% are the least similar. (That said, when I look closely, I'm not exactly sure what's going on with those bracket symbols.) However, a cladogram does not always have to be based on DNA sequence, and sometimes they are based on morphology (physical characteristics). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies - I thought the cladogram linked back to the article. Atsme 💬 📧 22:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I've given it a quick read now, and what I said above is pretty much correct. It's primarily based on DNA sequence. They took genome sequences for each breed, and determined similarities and differences. So basically that cladogram shows breeds that were very similar in their genes close together, and ones that were more dissimilar farther apart. When they assigned the colors to different groups, they also took phenotype into account: things like how kennel clubs group breeds based on looks and behaviors. It turns out (not surprisingly) that the genotype and phenotype usually match up pretty well. They also found a few outliers.

Since I'm making a wild guess that you are particularly interested in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (wink), the breeds that are very close to it are: Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier. They each differ by just a tiny amount in their DNA. Almost, but not quite, the same are: Mastiff and Bull Mastiff, going in one direction, and Boxer, Bulldog, Dogue de Bordeaux (I'd like a half-glass of that one), Boston Terrier, and French Bulldog, going in the other direction. So those are breeds that probably share a lot of ancestry. However, there is no information in this about who was the parent or offspring of whom. It supports the fact that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a distinct and identifiable breed. It says nothing about former names by which the breed was known. For example, it shows that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier are very closely related, but it's silent on whether Staffordshire Bull Terriers were or were not called Bull Terriers at various times in the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wild guess it is.🍻 A little background on the DNA stuff in a nutshell (and I'm just the shell). "Back when" I was working on the sturgeon doc (2 years in the making), I spent a great deal of time in the field and in the lab learning about relative genetics, DNA, and environmental changes/adaptations so I could properly script/present relative material the general puplic could understand. Granted, my memory is a little rusty because it's not something I do everyday. Worse yet, my hands-on background & education in animal husbandry (the latter doesn't change my pronoun) is what guides me. Am I under arrest, yet? While I may be too old to change, I'm not too old to learn new tricks (probably not the kind you're thinking, & has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, at least not intentionally...well, maybe jokingly), BUT...since you brought it up...(wink)...maybe you can help me adjust my thinking enough to learn what kind of RS justifies the inclusion of the earth is flat kind of material into a WP article. Example of a so-called "independent RS"–scroll down to About the Author and then over to Chapter 1 (+3 more pages) to the subtitle "Bull and terrier dogs" and the following statement (in context): This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognized by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier!!...which is followed by..."So how did they go about producing these dogs? There is a theory…. And then see if you can find where the Kennel Club (UK) or even the American Kennel Club made such claim.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sturgeon doc? Where do they go to medical school? (Or do they not school?) Can a sturgeon become a surgeon? As for flat earth: 1, 2. OK, now that I got that out of my system...

My reaction is that this book is an RS for your purposes. Given the content dispute, the proper way to deal with it would be with attribution: "According to James Beaufoy...". As I've said elsewhere, there is going to have to be inclusion of both perspectives on the page, and neither one is going to "win" this dispute. I also note that he treats it as two possible theories: one with terriers along with bulldogs as the ancestors, the other with bulldogs only. He does go on to describe in some detail how in the 1930s dog shows classified the breeds, so I figure that reflects what the kennel clubs determined. That's what I can get. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading your question, I get the feeling that you believe that the source may not be reliable. If so, I don't agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable for what has been proposed. Ok, so let me get this straight: we present the material with in-text attribution, saying something along the line of (maybe quote the author): "150 years later this dog would be recognized by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" (attributed); however, the Kennel Club states that "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier shares the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier, i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog." Tryp, the Kennel Club does not state that it is the bull and terrier renamed which is the crux of the disagreement. Perhaps editors are getting confused with the breed name, Bull Terrier vs the hybrid ancester "bull and terrier" that was never a bona fide breed? What is being proposed (actually insisted upon) is for us to say in Wikivoice that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier IS the "bull and terrier". Otherwise, there's no issue. The fact that the Stafford descends from the bull and terrier is already in the article, as are the two prevalent theories, and a very thoroughly detailed origin. Another fact that we know is that the Bull Terrier was often called "bull and terrier" and is a direct descendant of the bull and terrier hybrid (undocumented mixed breeds). The Bull Terrier was recognized in the AKC registry first (back in the late 1800s). The English Kennel Club actually states: "The modern Bull Terrier descended from a cross between the Bulldog and the White English Terrier and was bred for dog fighting in the 19th century." I guess my question is why you feel we should include misinformation as long as we attribute it? And what do we do with the other 5 (of 6) distinct breeds that are also descendants of the bull and terrier hybrid? Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC) ^{Tryp, it's complicated, and I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I'd be the first to agree to adding material if it improved the article. My concern is that it will only serve to confuse them our readers. In fact, the AKC states: The story of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively brief one in the grand scheme of canine history, but it can be confused by the several different names hung on the breed at various times. I welcome ideas that will help resolve this dilemma but please, not at the expense of accuracy. Atsme 💬 📧 02:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)}

Yes, this is complicated, somewhat more complicated than I have the bandwidth to analyze fully, and I would have to hear both "sides" of this argument, from editors on each "side". And I don't want to. And what I say here is advice to you, but is not binding on any discussion elsewhere on-wiki. That said, it sounds to me like it would be wrong to say in Wikivoice that the SBT is the BaT, full stop. It just sounds to me like this is something where some sources say one thing and some sources say another, so to say in Wikivoice that this is the fact of the matter would be OR or POV. I think that the page could say something like "some sources say that the SBT is the same as the BaT (cite sources inline), while other sources say it is not (cite sources inline)". (The AKC source sounds like something worth citing for the fact that there has been ambiguity.) There may be some use for elaborating on what some individual sources say, with attribution, but it need not be worded in a comically verbose way. If editors see some problems with "source X says that the Kennel Club says so-and-so", then leave that out as undue weight, but still treat it as a question with two sides, for which Wikivoice does not take one side and ignore the other. (If there is a verifiable source from the actual Kennel Club, that would be better to cite there.) I think it's perfectly reasonable to be careful not to confuse readers about Bull Terrier and "bull and terrier" being the same thing; it should always be clear about distinguishing between the two. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A similar compromise was made at Myles Moylan, dealing with the location of his birth. Some things are just lost to history, and sources will disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Linda Blair

Linda Blair was clearly an animal rights activist. It's mentioned in her lead. "Blair has publicly supported various charitable causes and is a prominent activist for the animal rights movement. In 2004, she founded the Linda Blair WorldHeart Foundation, a nonprofit organization that serves to rehabilitate and adopt rescue animals. A vegan, Blair co-authored the book Going Vegan! in 2001." In the article is also says "As an adult, she became an animal rights activist and humanitarian, working with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Feed the Children, Variety, the Children's Charity, and other organizations". How is this not defining? It appears you are removing other categories as well when we have good sourcing on some of these biographies. David Bale for example is described as an animal rights activist in obituaries [74]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, please feel free to revert me. My watchlist blew up today with all the categorization you have been doing, and I'm seeing a lot of bios being placed in animal rights categories that are pushing WP:DEFINING too far. But I can certainly make mistakes, and I'm sorry when I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair play I have not actually added any of those categories originally I was just replacing them with specific countries because the main category is overpopulated, I understand the category has been mis-used. I have just replaced the animal rights activist category with specific countries that's all I was doing I haven't actually read over all of them, I agree that some are not defining. There is also a big issue as some articles in the lead describe such people as animal rights but when you read the article they were animal welfare or vice versa. The same issue might be happening at veganism activists which is massively populated and needs to be broken down into sub-categories. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize that that's all that you were doing, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I appreciate fixing the countries. It's just that I saw all this, and wanted to correct the misuse of the categories where it was happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I agree with most of your edits. I know the category has been mis-used. Feel free to correct them, cheers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a category for "possessed" or "exorcised"...or is the latter more suited to Jane Fonda? Atsme 💬 📧 22:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. My funniest anecdote from those edits was that there is a page about an athlete, where someone put the page into Category:Animal rights activists only because the person had once run into the street to rescue a turtle who was at risk of getting hit by a car. Only on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I'm having second thoughts about this. Please take another look at Linda Blair. I took a more critical look at the page, and made some revisions. The animal rights stuff really seems pretty minor, and is unsourced. At most, it seems to be a matter of having an adoption program for animals, which is more like animal welfare than animal rights, and doesn't really sound like activism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See this source [75], she specifically mentions she is for animal welfare. I have not seen her discuss rights, she is a vegan though but that is unrelated. She has done some activism for veganism but probably not enough for the activism category. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hardly like having PETA at the center of her life. That unsourced canned language that was in the lead, about being "a prominent animal rights supporter", is the sort of thing that just gets plopped into celeb bios by POV pushers. With no prejudice against someone (someone else, not me) adding more information and sourcing to the page, I'm going to remove the category for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You beat me to it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am running into a similar problem on some actors or film people. Another example is Bill Maher. He is a PETA board member but that is oddly put in his lead. Is he really known for his animal rights activism? I think it is over-claimed. There are some posts about him on the PETA website but he has not spent a career promoting animal rights. I don't think it should be in the lead, what do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think of Maher as one of the few celebs where the category is appropriate, as is some mention in the lead. Although it's not what he is most known for, he frequently makes it a part of what he talks about (on his HBO show, for example), and he self-describes as it being something important in his life. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @ Tryptofish

Requesting your visit to the article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if you are interested in the topic.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me, but I won't be able to put the time in for that. (If any of my talk page participants are interested, I hope that they will help you with it.) After a quick look, I'd like to suggest that you read WP:Coatrack and make sure the page is compatible with that. Good luck and happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"anyone can edit"

Hi Tryptofish. You user page caught my attention. I was just wondering, out of pure curiosity, what would be your remedy for the problems that you see with the "anyone can edit" model? Would it be to select users based on credentials and things of that nature? Or am I misunderstanding something? Again, I'm just curious, nothing more. JBchrch talk 19:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking. It's definitely not a suggestion to require credentials, and it never even occurred to me until now that it could be understood that way. First of all, I posted it at a time when I was seriously pissed off over some things, and that now feels to me more like it's at least partially in the past – but I just haven't felt like updating my page. To some extent, it's more about a feeling (generally speaking) that there were some people who should have been blocked or banned or page-blocked or topic-banned, and who weren't. And partly over seeing some good editors driven away by editors who should have been recognized as "not here". And, most of all, over a feeling that the crowdsourcing model has been starting to bump up against its limitations. That last one remains something I'm concerned about now. The WMF has this misguided premise that it's always good when the number of edits goes up and it's always bad when it goes down or stays flat, and that the same thing applies to numbers of editors. And that's not true. I (to use an example that's near and dear to my heart!) am more useful than an IP vandal. I'm not at all convinced that Wikipedia is here to stay, and a part of the problem is the tendency to accept conventional wisdom without continuously reevaluating it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I have really not thought about these things long enough to offer any sort of response, but this is food for thought indeed. Thanks again for taking the time. JBchrch talk 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish is the kind of editor I'd like to meet for coffee and just pick their brain about the project. Terribly glad he hasn't retired by the time I've started to be involved in wiki stuff <3. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the kind words. I am happy that (in ACS's case) I can disagree with someone without there being bad will. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill revert

I was wondering why you reverted changes that gained consensus on the talk page. I don't see why the results of the Arbcom case are necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the consensus on the talk page was to remove a paragraph that remains removed and was unaffected by my edit, and because the other talk page RfCs remain open and do not show any WP:SNOW in either direction. So your claim of consensus is unfounded. And your making, again, a removal of content that you had removed repeatedly in the slow edit war that I documented in my ArbCom evidence, is just continuing, after a long break, that same slow edit war. I returned the page, for the time being, to where it was at the beginning of the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Media Guide discussion (not an RfC) is a strong consensus in my eyes, with all but a single contributor to the discussion arguing against inclusion (them supporting a brief mention). I am not counting Roxy's comment as he provided no justification. The thesis RfC (per my count) has 3 votes against inclusion, 2 votes for inclusion, and 13 votes for inclusion only in the context of a brief mention. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back and taken a second look at all of the things you refer to here. The Media Guide discussion does indeed trend towards it being undue weight, but there also tends to be some support for a brief mention. As it is, it's two sentences, one of which is a topic sentence and the other is a quote from the BLP subject. (Under the conditions of the present dispute, you should not be dismissing the comment of an editor you are in dispute with, but I'm giving it only partial weight due to the lack of an explanation.) I'd say that there is still plenty of room for removing it, pending further discussion, but it is not clear that the two sentences fail the criterion of being a brief mention. A superficial count of the thesis RfC is 12 in favor of inclusion (but again with some sentiment for shortening it), 4 opposed, and 3 in-between. The discussion needs an uninvolved closer, but I'd say that, as of now, there is not a consensus against inclusion, not by a long shot. Taking these things together, I'm not saying that you must be reverted and that the revert must stand for a long time. But I am saying that it is reasonable to leave things as the sort-of status quo (before the opening of the ArbCom case) for another day or so, until ArbCom posts the Proposed Decision. Pending further discussion and uninvolved closures, there may well be consensus for the removals you made, but WP:There is no deadline. Pending the ArbCom decision, and given that I'm seeing a lot of editors indicating unhappiness about it at various user talk pages, you should probably refrain from enacting your own questionable determination of consensus, given that your removals have already been reverted by multiple other editors, and no other editor has restored your removals. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding: if some other editor (not you) reverts me, I won't object. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't revert, I came here to discuss your edit and while I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning there's certainly some valid basis for your actions. I was just looking for more clarification because I saw the mention of the arbcom case as a reason for revert as unsatisfying (as Arbcom does not rule on content disputes). Thanks for your detailed response ^u^. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. (Just to be clear, I wasn't expecting them to rule on content, but I felt that the conduct issues should be resolved before editors would make controversial changes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Whadya know! After posting that, I saw that the MS thesis RfC was closed, so I did this: [76] (as well as this: [77]). Alas ArbCom have delayed their decision by a week now. Anyway, anyone who wants to discuss this should do so at the article talk page, and not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(e-c) In addition, I'm also having difficulty tracking down which version you have reverted to Tryptofish. Could you link that diff please? At least some of the changes that have been reverted do have valid consensus via RfC, so this revert appears improper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll reply because it's a straightforward question on something where I'm accountable, but this does not negate my notice below. My revert was this: [78]. The material I reverted was this: [79]. I did not revert this: [80]. As a result, the present page is this: [81], with this: [82] added. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be super-easy to follow, I reverted the combination of these three edits: [83], [84], [85], and did not revert these two edits: [86], [87]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Important Note to Other Editors: Please do not make any edits in this talk section. I will revert them. That's because I don't want the dispute underlying the ArbCom case to re-erupt here. This discussion will be between ACS and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Keep calm and carry on"

Apparently, the officially correct translation in Welsh is "Gan bwyll a daliwch ati". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a bikini whale in sight!!

I ran it back and forth in Google Translate (which of course is never wrong), and never got the same result twice. That damn language needs more vowels. For those playing along at home: [88]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

One good thing has come of this. I've learned that the Welsh word for "clam" is... wait for it... "clam". (I wanted to say "keep clams and carry on".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Might come in useful..... pysgod yn gymraeg!! My favourite: the deadly "cuckoo ray" (Cathfôr lygadog)!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds mighty blasphemous to me, something about piss god. But yes indeed, those rays can be a bit daffy, and no bikini at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Threesie, had you thought of selling that game to the Aberwstwyth Times for a low 7-figure sum? It was quite a challenge (... and no, the Cymraeg version is not called Wwrdle, it's called Cyrdle!!) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Better tighten your girdle. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh! I have it on! Marcia Williams 123 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, cutie! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll have you know the Welsh version is made with real cuttlefish dielectric elastomer actuators. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I just can't take my eyes off your wrasse! (Sorry if I sound snooty.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's hard keeping up with you guys!! Can someone provide a voice recording of "Gan bwyll a daliwch ati"? Jiminy Cricket!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's pronounced "Jiminy Cricket". Oh, wait, you meant gun bowel a sandwich patty. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And if you think it's bad here, you should see what we're doing on Ritchie's page. Or maybe you shouldn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

OMG, I fell out of my chair laughing!! Tears!!! Shhh...I'm getting yelled at for being too loud (can't help it). Atsme 💬 📧 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

.... no, it's not not Taiwan. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed not. Clymu un ymlaen. Which sort-of brings us back to "carry on". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That is very clever, you know. Although I'd never be openly racist about it. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But I honestly don't know what you mean about "openly racist". I thought I was saying "tie one on". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, I was obliquely referring to someone from the Netherlands... Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe we both should tie one on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah look.... AN/I still Open for Business I see... what you need is insurance! (well worth 5 minutes of your time!) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC) p.s. quite breezy here in UK today...

I'd say thanks for giving me a Woody, but I better not. But yes, I did enjoy that, perhaps the commencement of my second childhood. Some good examples of boomerangs. (Note to self: don't take airplane to UK.) ANI looks closed, but we better not blink. Insurance, wet blankets, broken records, perhaps we'll just break a record. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The airplane video got me thinking. I feel like I'm beginning to understand UK politics. There's all that gasbag activity over there. Perhaps it's coming from a certain PM. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Another note to self: Tryptofish, tsk, tsk, it was Hurricane Eunice, so You Nice Be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's him, Boris not-quite-good-enough or, as he's known in the Palace of Westminster... Boris the Blimp: [89]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Good! Now, we need a matchmaker: [90]! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

along with some small flowers if you like, as thanks for adding the spice of humour --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Whew! I've just read it, and it could have been a lot worse. I'm going to hold off on commenting at PD talk for a few days (probably), but my reaction on initial reading is that the editors who have commented here on my talk got off with a very good result. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And now, the case is officially finished (committee majority voting to close), pending the standard 24 hours hiatus. At last. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with entire Bishonen conglomerate..?

[A little haughtily.] Agree with 'Zilla, is it not?[91] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 21:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC).

See how I keep a little mystery about it? Now, put me down. [Adjusts socks.] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mr Fish

I wonder could you possibly help with an ancestry-type question on my Talk page from User:Kieronoldham? He is seeking the middle name of a "Michael M. Marino" (Feb. 8, 1962 - Oct. 24, 1976?). Perhaps you know some ancestry buffs with access to US sources? Thanking you, in confidence.... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No really, we believe you, you're not even in the frame for murdering Marion. It was some guy from Chicago. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. but maybe some of your non-murdering (talk page stalker)s have access to relevant records?

OK, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the middle name! Fuggedaboutit! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of removal of content on another user's talk apge

You didn't deserve a face palm, Trypto. So instead here's a big f*ck off date palm.
-- ME123

I didn't invite you on a date, so f-off to you too! --Tryptofish

...f*ck off is the new good day.

Have some citrus with those dates.

Hey! I removed that stuff from Phil's page because I had accidentally ended up on his talk page while I was looking at WP:VPR and thought I was still looking at VPR. When I realized I was no longer on VPR I had already removed that comment, so I just left it up to Phil if he was fine with me removing it or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and please don't worry about it. It caught my attention because, in part, you reverted something that I had written. (There's a guideline about this sort of thing at WP:TPO.) But anyway, it's no big deal. (For my talk page watchers, we're talking about: [92], [93].) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, and I"m not really worrying about it. It was just simply me thinking i was removing a personal attack from VPR, and then suddenly realizing that I'm no longer on VPR. I hadn't even noticed the page go blank for a second as it loaded Phil's talk page which attributed to my confusion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Dyslexia/close merge uninvolved

Hi Tryptofish, wondering if you could help with a small favor, WhatamIdoing has made a few very good suggestions[94] and I've done several edits that WhatamIdoing has suggested,[95],[96],[97],[98], I could close the discussion/merge per...this and the links included in this edit but it may be best if someone else would...its essentially just 1. close talk discuss with {{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was… . ~~~~}}/{{Discussion bottom}} add the reason at the bottom of the talk where it says 'close' to 'template discuss top|result=' and then 2. remove merge from Dyslexia and Characteristics of dyslexia, again I would do it myself, however its best if its someone uninvolved, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I owe you, thanks Tryptofish--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, you're very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Need a neutral editor

Hi! I was wondering if you could help de-escalate the Hob Gadling v SFR pissfight at RSN. I tried to do so but understandably HG is not very receptive to my concerns. I fear the current discussion might be escalating tensions, which right after an arbcom case would threaten to undo the carefully constructed and thoughtful close by reignating the whole issue. Your help would be greatly appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See that, I don't think adding "I understand if you are infuriated at other editors' perspective [sic] on the source" was a constructive intervention. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, so you've been reading the thread and really have nothing else to comment on about Hob's thinly veiled PAs? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In my understanding, one of the outcomes of the arbcom case was that editors should report behaviour they find objectionable to WP:AE. Adding drama otherwise risks repeating the problems that led to that case. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that we should try and avoid AE if possible, and I'm hoping tryptofish can help, Alexbrn. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, after further thought your argument was convincing. It is best to deal with this soon rather than let it unravel itself. I have started an AE thread on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the perception that I can be neutral and might be able to help, so thank you for that. But I'm glad that I have been logged out while this dispute has been ongoing, and seeing what I see now at WP:AE, I am going to stay out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That's probably wisest. Sorry for the headache, and hope you've enjoyed your weekend :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SPI (2)

I think you know I respect you, but I don't really understand your take on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavalryman. The three IP's are pretty clearly the same person, but the evidence that they're operated by Cavalryman is... what? That they both live in Australia, a country of 25 million people, and happen to agree with each other about something? The SPI complaint itself is full of unsupported aspersions and personal attacks but completely lacking in substance.

If an anti-GMO account came along and accused you and me of being sockpuppets, based solely on the fact that we both live in the US and agreed with each other about something, you'd presumably have no problem identifying that as ridiculous and vexatious. I'm not clear why you have a blind spot when it comes to these particular accusations, or why you would enable them. Cavalryman is a long-term, highly productive contributor in good standing with a clean block log, so I'm not sure why you're so quick to assume the worst about him but so quick to extend extreme benefit-of-the-doubt to people with far less impressive track records. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for discussing this with me. (We are talking about this.) I'm going to be somewhat unresponsive about the SPI, because of WP:BEANS. I was initially skeptical, too. Now, I'm more like neutral, with an open mind. (I'm also not sure that all three of the IPs are the same person.) If you look back at my first comment in the ANI thread, you can see that I'm not at all hostile to Cavalryman. I'm really not at all hostile to anyone in this dispute. Maybe I have a blind spot, but I don't think so (and maybe you have one and you don't think so, either). I think that both combatants in the dispute have impressive track records as content contributors, and I also think that their combat has turned into something way too personal. I want to let the SPI process play out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If anyone else, other than MastCell, is thinking of replying here, please think twice. I'm thinking of more than one person. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to let you both-sides this issue so glibly. One "side" (Cavalryman) posted a detailed, diff-heavy complaint at AN/I specifically alleging a set of inappropriate behaviors (falsifying sources, WP:HOUNDing, etc). The other "side" posted an aspersion-filled, evidence-free, and transparently retaliatory SPI, hounded him with bogus copyright complaints, and groundlessly threatened him with a T&S report. I don't think you'd have any trouble identifying the asymmetry here if Atsme weren't involved. I think I was very forthright about my prior negative experiences with Atsme and the way they might color my judgment—but those experiences also make it easier for me to empathize with Cavalryman as his reasonable, substantiated complaint is completely ignored and Atsme's bullying is normalized. By people like you. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, people like me are not glib. I hope you'll think that over, but that's on you. I'm comfortable with myself, and of course that's on me. I'm not given to being dumb about making excuses for both-sides cop-outs. But I'm also the person who wrote WP:USTHEM. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what frustrates me, because WP:USTHEM is sort of the issue here. From my perspective, you tolerate and even enable behavior from your wiki-friend that you wouldn't accept from other editors. You're a sharp person—I know you recognize some of her behavior as beyond the pale, and while you're not under any obligation to condemn it, it is fair to expect that you don't appease and enable it. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people really push one another's buttons. You can see from the top of my talk page that I came very close to quitting WP after an unpleasant interaction with someone else. I don't think that someone else is a bad person or a bad editor. But when we intersect, we tend to combust. I, for one, can't help it. So I just stay away. I think it's like that with you and Atsme, too. She really rubs you the wrong way. (And I'm going to guess that it's mutual.) I'd like to consider you as another wiki-friend of mine, even though I think you have a tendency to WP:RGW. I've had a long history of being able to get along with editors on both "sides" of issues. I did that recently in the just-closed ArbCom Skepticism case. I did it repeatedly with editors in the GMO disputes. I was happily friendly with both DrChrissy and Jytdog at the same time, even though they couldn't stand one another. (Neither is still here: DrChrissy sadly died, and Jytdog got himself shit-canned after blowing off my advice.) But no one would mistake me for someone who lacked discernment about GMO content, or who didn't insist on placing science ahead of fringe. I'm not going to apologize for any of that.

A long time ago, I used to edit pages about research on schizophrenia, but I stopped when, in part, I began to have a COI about the research, and in part I just got more interested in editing other things. But I clearly remember having some editing interactions with users who self-identified as having schizophrenia, themselves. Let's face it, some of their ideas about what to put on the page were... fanciful. But it made me very aware that, to edit WP, one has to be willing to work with whoever and whatever shows up.

Please understand that, in not agreeing with you about Atsme, I'm not condemning Cavalryman. I like and respect Cavalryman, and my saying that we should wait for a checkuser at the SPI is not me prejudging the outcome. I don't see this thing as "Team Atsme" versus "Team Cavalryman". I've probably looked into the disputed source material more than you have, and I don't think it's the way you seem to think it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Look. I'll tell you when I think you're off-base, and I see you're willing to do the same for me. That's a mark of respect. I just wish that some of Atsme's friends—you included—respected her enough to do the same for her. Instead she has an ecosystem of enablers—including an admin—ready to throw themselves between her and any sort of accountability. That's unhealthy, for all of us. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I consider it a mark of respect, and you can rest assured that I do respect you (although my respect may not be worth much in some circles ). I think there are ecosystems on both sides (an editor friendly with you has banned me from their talk page because of my criticism of you, which I'm sad about). I try within my own networks of wiki-friends to tell them when I think they are off-base, regardless of which "side" they fall on – so I hope that's not enabling so much as having my own opinions. If you look at what happened at the now-archived ANI thread later, after your comment and the response to it, you will see that I did call her out when I felt that I should. It was just later than when you and some other people thought that I should have. But in any case, please know that I want to consider you one of my wiki-friends. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Team Tryptofish

Just had to say that I generally love your approach to discussions here. I'm one of those people that tends to see the bright side of most situations, perhaps because darkness has been my 'friend' in the past. Having said that, you have made my time here fun and helped me to see Wikipedia from many different perspectives. After all the discussions above I just felt like letting you know that you are appreciated and if there were teams I'd be Team Tryptofish. If I didn't make the team then I would probably put on socks and apply to join the Bishonen Conglomerate as a door greeter. That would be interesting and fun. --ARoseWolf 13:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I applied to join Team Trypto, but luckily I managed to bribe someone to blackball me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! And back atcha! (The "Team" reference is to the discussion section just above.) For reasons that I cannot discuss publicly, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to say, beyond that. (Don't ask.) Let's just say that Wikipedia can be an, um, interesting place, and sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. But in any case, your messages make me very happy indeed! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Addiction RfC closed

Howdy Tryptofish! It's been a month since anyone commented on RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?, so I closed the discussion. Would you like to edit the introduction to the article with the very well-written compromise language you crafted? (Click here to go directly to the intro you wrote). Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about it, but I've been incredibly busy in real life, and have not had the time to work on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Darn that real life! ;^) I went ahead and replaced the current lead paragraph with the consensus-based paragraph you crafted (diff). I retained most of the citations present in the previous paragraph, even if I disagreed with their relevance. A couple of citations no longer supported a statement in the lead because the sentence no longer exists. I omitted one instance of a reference that had been cited three times in the lead paragraph. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah . Thank you very much for your understanding and for making that edit. It's looks good to me, and is fine for the time being. Whenever I can get around to it, I'll update the sources, but I think this works fine for now. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor Tryptofish for fine defence work in the skeptics arb case. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Was just reviewing the Arb case, at least the parts relating to the editor I saw as impeding the Colonel's work. As someone who normally plays for the defence, I was struck by the quality of your work there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Feyd! I try in these things to call it down the middle, but also to make sure that no one gets unfairly hurt. As ArbCom cases go, I felt that this one was actually unusually collegial (relatively speaking!). As I'm sure you realize, my comment there, that you thanked me for, was just making sure that both sides of the retractions were recognized. It means a lot to me when people appreciate my efforts in these disputes, especially since I also get my share of grief about it. Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The bright side of grief – it's the balance that deflates inflated self-esteem, not that you're inflated. 🎈🐡 Atsme 💬 📧 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Grrreeeaaattt! Thanks, FeydHuxtable. Now we'll never get Tryp back in his bowl (lol). In all seriousness though, it's a much deserved appreciation for an amazing editor and an even better human/fish hybrid. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 Atsme 💬 📧 17:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all you nice people! Actually, I might be inflated. And if it's a punch bowl, suitably spiked, I'll be quite happy to dive in! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Level of journal credibility-reliability

Would you consider the articles published in the following sources to be equally as or more reliable than say a doggy book published by a dog enthusiast/expert in a book about a particular breed of dog they either own, show/breed/raise?

1. "Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences;
2. "Genomic analyses reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration and hybridization on modern dog breed development", published in Cell Reports;
3. "A genetic assessment of the English bulldog" published in Canine Genet Epidemiol;
4. "Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff" published in The Veterinary Journal.

I've seen articles lacking inline citations but that are cited to one or two books – some of which were published by academia, and authored by academics, or they're science journals with peer-reviewed articles authored by scientists. The articles appeared to be written by competent editors who are able to properly contextualize and summarize the relevant points that were published. After all, our primary job is to comply with V, use RS, avoid NOR like the plague, & maintain NPOV, right? Atsme 💬 📧 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My energy level for the whole bulldog debate is limited, so I can't answer on broader implications for that debate. But about the RS status of those four journal articles, yes, they are all unambiguously RS and the journals for #1 and #2 are of very high quality (heck, I've published in PNAS multiple times, wink, wink). I'm not personally familiar with the journals for #3 and #4, because they are outside of my areas of expertise, but they look to me to be entirely reputable sources. I cannot imagine a valid policy-based objection to citing these sources for articles here. That means, of course, that the text accurately reflects the sources, and any due weight issues get addressed separately. As for comparison with a doggy book, that depends to some extent on what is being cited. The doggy book may or may not be fine for cultural and historical aspects, less so for a particular locus on a chromosome. If there is a conflict between what a dog hobbyist says about a specific genetic point, and what a peer-reviewed scientific article says about the same genetic point, then it is obvious that the scientific article is the better source. (I watchlist Alex's talkpage, so I saw your question there about predatory journals, and I agree with him that predatory journals are no-nos here, and I have no doubt that predatory publishers will go after unwitting authors in any field, including veterinary science. But these four are not predatory.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Question (1)

I'm not seeing the purpose of the "relies too much on refs to primary sources" tag in the header of Nothing comes from nothing. I doubt there are many more options to reference a quote by a Roman poet & philosopher other than a book that contains the quote, do you? The same would apply to a line in Shakespeare's King Lear. Krause & Hawking seem to be RS to cite as does Kaku's video. I also don't see any potential for an OR challenge, which is why I'm here seeking your opinion. I looked to see who added that tag, and it looks like maybe tagging was a hobby considering this comment. (now retired), or maybe they simply changed user names? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In response to Asareel.↓↓😂 Atsme 💬 📧 03:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a very primary source, but may not be wholly related? I think you're right, though. Yes, tagging can get a bit compulsive... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A group of big fans? Also not related.
-- Asareel

I love that song!! Brings back FUN memories - dancing while I type. 💃 Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi friends! I'm just letting you know that I've seen this, but I'll have to get back to you in a day or so, when I can give it more attention. I don't have much time right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(TPW comment) That looks like a defensible tagging to me. I think what the original tagger is trying to say is that the article currently gives a reasonable spread of examples of usage, but doesn't have sufficient secondary commentary to demonstrate that people consider this particular dictum important.

Alhough it instinctively seems unfair—if a saying has survived this long surely it's prima facie notable?—we insist on secondary sourcing to demonstrate external commentary for a reason. Without applying the "is there significant discussion in independent reliable sources of this particular phrase?" GNG standard, we'd be setting a precedent for an separate stand-alone article on (e.g.) each of the 31,000 bible verses, or each of the 500,000 structures on the National Heritage List for England. That is, it's not enough just to demonstrate that something is considered important, an article needs to demonstrate that people are talking about it. ‑ Iridescent 04:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(adding) I'm not sure the Shakespeare quote is really appropriate here, either. "Nothing will come of nothing, speak again" in King Lear is Lear warning Cordelia that unless she grovels she'll be written out of his will; there's no suggestion that Shakespeare meant it as a reference to Greek concepts of creation. (Shakespeare was a practicing Christian, and more importantly so were his audiences, and God's power to make and unmake if He wants to is a basic tenet of Christianity.) ‑ Iridescent 04:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Very fair analysis. I'm certainly ain't saying nuffink about Nothing comes from nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Iri – so the obvious (to me) next question would be where does one even look to find RS that quote the quotes and analyze them? If nothing exists, then this is basically "nothing comes from nothing"? Atsme 💬 📧 19:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've now taken a close look – although it seems as though everyone else has already gotten it covered! Maybe a case of something coming from me doing nothing. (For my reason for putting that tag there, see: [99]. My goodness, what a small wiki-world.) Anyway, I don't think it matters whether or not the two users are the same person, or whether the tagging was thoughtful or drive-by. And I agree with Iri's analysis. I don't see any notability issues, but there is a conspicuous lack in the article of scholarly commentary about the phrase. I'd start by looking in something like Google Books or Scholar with the phrase as the search term. One could add names like Parmenides or Lucretius to the search term. I'd be very surprised if there isn't some academic somewhere who has analyzed and explained how those historic figures used and viewed the phrase. Adding such secondary commentaries would do a lot to flesh out the page for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but would they be doing it from the same perspective as what the era afforded? It's one thing to analyze a societal perspective in retrospect but we cannot ignore the epistemic differences between the respective eras. I liken it to considering purebred dogs in the 1800s the same way we consider modern purebred dogs today - two very different processes and perspectives. What a bitch. Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you're asking me, that dog don't hunt, and you're barking up the wrong tree. Scholars are entirely capable of describing the context of writings from earlier eras. And views from multiple periods in time, particularly if they have changed over time, are entirely encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And, not quite related to mutting comes from mutting, I recently came upon our page about A Dog's Love. There's a link there that allows one to watch the entire 11 minutes of the film. It's very dated, and very silly. But I'm embarrassed to admit that it made me cry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Awwww. The cost of tears at Wikipedia! That's because "Nothing in Life is Free", allegedly. "sob" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. Although it occurs to me that every dog is an "sob" – or "dob". (Or non-binary of a b.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh! Just like that ol' wiki, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahem...in response to hunting dogs...NYTimes' 1984, History Is What Historians Do: And, since events do not coincide with the perceptions of their actors or their witnesses, it is the historian who makes the event, or remakes it, out of the evidence he has the sense or luck to lay his mind on. Historiography is not arbitrary, but it is subjective. Atsme 💬 📧 22:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So if historiography "is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline", then what is the history of historiography, or the historiography of the history of historiography? Nothing from nothing? Riddler (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought it interesting

Earthlings may actually be aliens . Atsme 💬 📧 10:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Tryp is most definitely an alien. I know because I saw his fish bowl asteroid impact just before my ice comet did. --ARoseWolf 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sshh, don't blow my cover!

The idea that biomolecules came from space has been around for a long time. If I remember correctly, Francis Crick was an early proponent. I think it's possible, but not very convincing. To start from the idea that conditions had to be "just right" on Earth, doesn't make it any more likely that conditions were "just righter" somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned. I know paddlefish require exacting conditions before they'll spawn so "just right" seems highly plausible biologically. I'm cautiously optimistic that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will have it all figured out over the next 2 decades.^[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 12:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk about aliens... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Got nothing on our resident Tryptofish from outer space --ARoseWolf 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Either that, or the other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You try'na steal my thunder. I came by way of here in the middle of the night or something like that. --ARoseWolf 19:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, as long as no one here feels alienated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, did you also know that... "language is a virus from outer space"? [100]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I always use an anti-malware program as well as a condom on my computer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Come to Britain... and enjoy Marmite condoms! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. (What is it, with Britain and disgusting food?) There's a contest where the winner won one of those condoms, and the loser won two of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I tempt you to a Wet Nelly? Or maybe a piece of pie? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That gag makes me want to gag. Listen, you Stinking Bishop, I'm not tempted in the least. Stuff like that could give a person a Spotted Dick. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to apologize if I have offended any Bishops or Dicks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at all the flavors! --ARoseWolf 19:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for arriving late to this discussion: how do you explain life arising so soon after the planet formed? When you look at the dates it really does seem like life arose very quickly under horrific conditions, as if it was already lurking in the Solar System in some form or another. Newer research shows that bacteria can survive in space for at least eight years, making interplanetary transfer doable. One thing that has always stuck with me is visiting the Big Island of Hawaii during volcanic activity and seeing life arise in the pores of the lava so soon after it cools and comparing it to other parts of the islands decades and even centuries later. The same was also said for the area that was devastated by the eruption of Mount St. Helens which rebounded with new, but different vibrant ecosystems. Obviously, life already existed on Earth to fill these empty niches, but think about the Solar System in the far past: to directly address your point that "conditions had to be "just right" on Earth, doesn't make it any more likely that conditions were "just righter" somewhere else", based on this 2019 paper, life could have arisen on Mars 500 million years earlier than on Earth. Further, we know that models show that Venus could have supported life for at least three billion years, up to about 800 million years ago. The idea that life arose on Earth seems very much a culture bound belief. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and before I get to my reply, I just want to mention that I've been lurking at your discussions with ජපස, since I consider both of you to be wiki-friends of mine, and I've been very happy about the trajectory that has followed. (And also, from that 2019 paper, I just love the word "baddeleyite".)

Well, there's obviously two sides to the science about it. It could be "a culture bound belief" or "a bacterial culture bound belief". I think I disagree with the part about "life arising so soon after the planet formed". See our pages on Geologic time scale and Abiogenesis: according to that second page, it was about a billion years from Earth formation until the appearance of first life (4.54 minus 3.5 gya; don't worry anybody, I had to look up what that means, too). That's a lot longer than it takes to read War and Peace. That's a loooong time during which various molecules could have formed, failed, formed again, failed again, and on and on until something came together that could self-replicate. But yeah, there could be other nearby planets like Mars that could have gotten there earlier. (I'm not seeing how both Mars and Venus would have done it sooner than Earth, which is in between them spatially and thermally.) I think it's more credible that neighboring planets could have done it, than sources outside of the solar system. It is indeed a conundrum that, if things had to be "just right" here, then they would equally have had to have been "just right" somewhere else. Also Earth had to have been habitable when/if life from elsewhere got here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"gosh". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Go look at abiogenesis again: Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec, soon after ocean formation 4.4 Gya during the Hadean. Some of this is cited to Dodd et al. 2017 which has recently been superseded by Papineau et al. 2022, which makes the culture bound assumption that life originated on Earth, not that it arrived here during the Haldean Eon during the first 500 million years, which is what the fossil molecular clocks suggest. There are several reasons for this. One, the absence of the geological record during that time (see Hadean zircon) and the question as to when liquid water was available. Mars has rocks that are 100 million years older than Earth, and it had a habitable surface with water before Earth. Also, 3% of all meteorites on Earth are from Mars. Clark et al. 2021: "A synthesis combining the discoveries from the exploration of Mars with terrestrial analogs, relevant laboratory experiments, and theoretical models point towards an [independent origin of life] on Mars as being likely to the same degree, and even more so in many respects, than the origin of life on Earth itself." Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, those are good points. I suspect that you are more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. As Atsme says at the top of this discussion, it is interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"I know nothing", as Sergeant Schultz used to say. I very much doubt I am more knowledgeable than you about anything. Rest assured, your crown is very much intact. I was just having fun with "what if we are all from Mars?" As you are very much already aware, this hypothesis explains nothing and has little to no evidence. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think I deserve that. I'm satisfied so long as my skull stays intact. Here's a dirty little secret about scientists: when we study something that is, at present, not understood yet, we don't understand it yet, either. That's the whole point of doing science on something. I'm knowledgeable about my areas of scientific expertise, and in areas where I make an effort to educate myself – but the topic here is, for me, neither. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for changing the subject, but Reddit had a popular thread today about biofeedback, a subject I’ve seen discussed off and on for a very long time, but a topic I really haven’t paid much attention to all that much. The subject was the old Harvard study of Buddhist monks, which purported to show they could change their vitals by volition. It wasn’t all that clear if the study was significant, and several people made the point that anyone could do biofeedback, and it wasn’t all that difficult. I was wondering what your take on it was. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember a study from what must be a pretty long time ago, in which monks (I forget which far-Eastern tradition, but it could well have been Buddhism) were able to regularize their gamma waves (brain activity manifested as coordinated, synchronous electrical activity) through meditation. If one thinks of regular, synchronized brain activity, as opposed to desynchronous neuron firing, as being a sort of restful, peaceful mental state, then these kinds of observations make sense. I think it's quite reasonable that, when a person focuses on their state of mind, that will affect what's going on in the brain – and practicing to get proficient at doing that will be reflected in brain activity. And we know, for example, that prominent delta wave activity is the hallmark of deep sleep. (I've actually done some theoretical work in this subject, but I'm not going to elaborate because I want to avoid self-outing.) So yes, I believe this sort of thing is quite real. (As for Reddit, though, meh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

and then they did this.Special:Contributions/RichardZack which was not too clever. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I'm pretty sure that you aren't a new editor. (For watchers, this is about [101].) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Your support

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022

You may wish to make your support official by bolding it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Note to self (2)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hi Tryptofish. You've made comments at the requested move at Talk:Great Replacement. ArbCom has determined that this topic area is an ugly cesspool where sensible editors will never choose to tread; only wankers like you are foolish enough to edit there. Consequently, there are discretionary sanctions, which require that you act with discretion. Please also note that this message does not imply any wrongdoing on your part. Don't snicker at that. Also, please enjoy the soothing background color of the notice, which you helped select.

By the way, I've been very impressed with your editing here. Keep up the good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. Thank you for making me aware of this. I will use my discretion. By the way, I've been very impressed with your editing here. Keep up the good work! Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Did...did you just DS/alert yourself? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Heh heh. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's kinda genius! The somewhat crazy kind of genius, but definitely kinda genius nonetheless! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Some would say that I'm kinda crazy. But it's more fund than posting DS/aware. Oh wait, now I can't claim ignorance of the DS! D'ooh! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake news! people... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what happens when I talk to myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I did a DS to myself, and I also called myself a wanker. Talk about self-abuse! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Just Tryp being Tryp, and that's why we love you. Anything more or less would be uncharacteristic of our resident alien fish. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, thank you, Tryptofish, and keep up the good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. I think I'll laugh and cry, at the same. This is so beautiful/cry cry. --ARoseWolf 18:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When there's an editing dispute that would make anyone cry, the best cure is to make it into something to laugh about. Oh, and keep up the good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I just remembered: WP:CRYCRYBLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

AE

I would have posted on Roxy's page, but he told me not to post there. I suggest he strikes the whole "identify as a dog" thing. Regardless of how it was intended, it's common transphobic phrasing, and it would show good faith to strike it. Also, Sideswipe pointed out which diffs came after the DS notice, so pointing it out further probably isn't going to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. At some point folks are using bad-faith claims like transphobia against opponents merely to get their way. I caution all against making any effort to soothe the braying mob of malefactors. Imagined harm doesn't belong on an open source project. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The "I identify as a X, does that make me a X" line is pretty widely accepted as transphobic. I'm pretty sure we're at the point where a person's gender self-identification shouldn't be the subject of mocking comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If Roxy can't be a dog, then you can't be a radish. I self-identify as the name on my birth certificate so maybe you folks should follow my lead. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not actually a radish, or from Scotch-Finlandia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

So what? Roxy said that they are not actually a dog. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And I'm a fish: feel free to take me to AE over saying that. As for what I'm going to say next, I've been thinking of posting it at AE, if you post what I have a feeling you will. So think carefully about what you say next. I went through the edit history of Quentin Crisp and Talk:Quentin Crisp from 2017 to the present. Roxy has been editing there for a long time, and so has had a long ongoing interest in the page. You, on the other hand, have made no edits to the page, and just this one recent edit to the talk page: [102]. I have to conclude that you were WP:FOLLOWING Roxy there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that SFR and I have no major idealogical differences and I have never felt stalked or hounded by them as defined by this project. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Roxy. I think the one comment I made on that talk page was fairly constructive, although I did see it because I saw Sideswipe post on your talk page, and took a peek. I simply think that striking that comment would be a good idea. That phrasing has a long history, and if someone was unaware, that's fine. That doesn't mean striking after realizing it's a hurtful phrase, and has been used as a transphobic attack is a bad thing. YMMV of course.

I have no intention of taking part in the AE case, much as I've ignored other AE-worthy violations from other editors I've been in dispute with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I appear to have taken your advice, as well as Trypto's. Fancy that;) - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether to say: (1) if we both gave the same advice, then run the other way, or (2) group hug? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe we can play a game of Dog, Fish, Radish. (No helicopters, I promise!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Trypto when someone says a joke is transphobic, running the joke again doesn't make it any less hurtful towards trans editors reading your page. There's tasteful ways to make the fish joke and there's offensive ways to poke fun at non-cis gender identities. Many editors respect you and appreciate your involvement in disputes but please don't belittle others' hurt. "I identify as/am a [insert non-human entity]" when said as part of transgender-related discussions is and/or will be interpreted as a reference to the very transphobic internet meme. Refusing to at least appreciate how it can be hurtful or disrespectful to editors who are transgender is disappointing, and I'd ask you to at least see SFR's comment as a good-faith attempt to explain what's the locus of the issue. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. No one should think that I'm insensitive to trans issues, and on the other hand, no one should think that I cannot make mistakes. I've been thinking about just that issue, and I'm also coming around to agree with SFR on the specific point that Roxy should strike that individual comment and make some sort of statement about that at AE. Roxy, please take note. I was just looking back at something I wrote in an earlier dispute over almost the same thing but with different specifics: [103]. Editors need to see both "sides" of these issues. It's not a zero-sum game. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a teacher that wore prescription glasses. One day the teacher forgot their glasses at home and had some difficulty seeing their way to the classroom. As class began a student in the front asked a question and the teacher couldn't make out who had asked the question. In their response to the student they quipped, "You are hard to look at." Now, before class every day the student had been bullied about their appearance. That day was no exception but these words from the teacher cut deeper because the teacher was respected and the words seemed only to confirm the feelings the student had been having. Who was right? Who was wrong? The teacher had no knowledge of the bullying and they simply were stating that the student was hard to look at because they had forgotten their glasses at home. The student had been bullied and when only those words are taken into account it did sound offensive. The student immediately became offended without taking into account everything the teacher said. The way we communicate and the way we receive communication is so important. We all can be more sensitive but we also can be a little more understanding that not everyone has experienced the same things in life and we all live with different perspectives. Maybe we all need to listen more and not so easily take offense to every comment or thought we hear, even when the feelings of hurt are legitimate.

This is not an evaluation of Roxy's comment, only those made here in this discussion. --ARoseWolf 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish, this is a subject that means a lot to me, so while I stayed away from AE I'd like to make a brief comment if I may, as I think there has been far to much focus on the meme and far too little focus on what it means. As I'm sure you would understand, when someone wishes to be identified as something other than their birth gender, it is a difficult and complex decision that is extremely important to them. They are saying that they want to be identified as what they actually are, not by what other people may see them as being. It is confronting, never easy, and almost invariably leads to abuse and harassment, but it is very important to each individual who recognises themselves this way. The reason the meme was so powerful is that it trivialised what this means to people, saying that their identification is no more significant than if they identified as an "attack helicopter". When someone turns round and says "well I self identify as a dog" or "I self identify as a <insert whatever you like here>" it isn't that they are refencing the meme that is the problem, it is that they are trivialising the person's identity. It is great to say "I never heard of the meme", but the statement they made still has the same meaning, intentional or otherwise, and it is the meaning that does the damage, not simply the reference to a meme. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us publicly, Bilby. I agree with you in that it is a topic that requires empathy and consideration, as does any other comment that deeply hurts another human being. I have considered Tryp a wikifriend for over a decade, and know him well enough to say that he is not the type of person who would purposely hurt anyone, and is one of the most sympathetic/empathetic people I have ever had the privilege of knowing, even though it has been anonymously. Members of our little group of Burma Shave humorists have inadvertently stepped over the line on occasion, but have never meant any harm to anyone. Just wanted you to know, and to say thank you for the gentle reminder. Atsme 💬 📧 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First, please let me fumble around for my glasses.

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments, and for the kind words. To some extent, I feel like the AE is closed, with a happy result, and it's something I would really like to move on from. I'm not going to say anything about my off-wiki identity personally, because I don't feel like it, but I want to assure everyone that I understand these issues better than some editors may think. Anyone interested in evaluating my editing approach should feel free to look at my recent contributions at Talk:Quentin Crisp, where I went in response to the AE discussion. Or not.

Let me explain something. There is also the concept of On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And there's nothing offensive or insensitive about it. It's funny. Anyone who watches my talk page comments knows that I have, for many fish-years, insisted that I am a fish. I have numerous times posted the lead image from Anglerfish, claiming that it's me. When I say, "In one fish's opinion...", I'm making a humorous and self-deprecating disclaimer that I understand that other editors may have legitimate disagreements with me. I'm not trivialising anybody.

Please understand that I'm not finding fault with anyone trying to explain these things to me here. I appreciate that, and am always happy to learn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I knew it! I always suspected you were really a fish. I feel better now that you have been exposed. Vindicated even. Hey, I have some chips here if you want any? Wash it down with some curry sauce? --ARoseWolf 19:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Exposed? Sorry, my bathrobe came open. Woops. Fish and chips? Don't harm the fish! Don't harm the chips! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No fish or chips were harmed in the writing of my comment. After? We'll call it wikilove bites. lol --ARoseWolf 19:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi Tryptofish, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I don't have the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Color me gobsmacked

What color is gobsmacked, and facepalm? It's times like these that make us appreciate coloring in EEng's yard. Atsme 💬 📧 23:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. When the inevitable ANI comes into being, if EEng chooses to grace it with his ANI humor, this will be one time when I will gladly support it. Oh, and Burma Shave. --Tryptofish

When I stopped shaving,
I didn’t like my beard at first
Then it grew on me.
~Burma Shave
Atsme 💬 📧 00:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't scan with the the rhyme. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
It may not scan, but it's the best that we can. --Tryptofish

Thanks. I think that’s ANI material but I should have been asleep by now, got to keep my strength up. What do you think? I’ll see your reply in a few hours. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoruba Topics

I’m not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance.

Assuming you want to discuss the content than the talk page is there to be put to good use. Otelemuyen (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Otelemuyen: I'm going to leave it to others as to what to do with your actions.

@Doug: Color me whatever color a facepalm is! But what matters most is, of course, you taking care of yourself. I, too, see this as heading towards WP:ANI (by way of WP:CIR), but I'm going to leave that to others.

@Everyone else watching here, this is about: [104]. Wikipedia never fails to amaze – does it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Just WOW. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Start of non-Yoruba topics:

Coming from Roxy, that's a BOW WOW! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proof of ownership issues. We need arbitration! I suggest a fish fry. --ARoseWolf 18:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Now now, as we all know, the good book says this:

"Let Pharaoh do this: Let him appoint overseers over the articles and take a fifth of the harvest of the articles of Egypt during the seven years of abundance." (Gen 41:34) etc., etc. Potipharevans123 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wanna fry me, do ya? Well then, I'm calling in the Bored of Overseers! Sorry if I made any oversights. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A horse is a horse of course. --ARoseWolf 19:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. And so it goes in the brainy deep! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And back to our original programming:

And... blocked: [105]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I realize that I am taking a cheap shot, I think that "viscous insinuation" (along with "outmost importance" and "mute and unnecessary"), well, wow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! Classic Loudon. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just don't drink anything "viscous". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As in Sid, you mean, lol. Kenny Kosek on fiddle there, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "Call me thirsty, call me oral, Call me what you like, But when I'm sober, call me Loudon, Do not call me Mike..."

Yes, Viscous Sid, along with Ruttin' Johnny (not to mention Mrs. M.). And don't call me late for dinner! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley". -- BigDaddyevans123 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Big Daddy jokes: Martin calls Tryptofish "Late for Dinner", and Tryptofish calls Martin "Shirley". Tryptocrab (tree) 21:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool! (check out those moves, dude) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Cannot be improved upon! Best part: where he can't get his shirt unbuttoned. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was entranced until that point. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've got to say that you are very nearly the last person I would have expected to get this from. (I'm guessing that it has to do with this: [106].) But, sincerely, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You understand dis and dat. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Tart, pastie or me?

Dis an Dat?? Oh gimme, gimme!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

How sweet!! Are you sharing? I've never had a Dobos torte. I'm pretty sure tortes are different from British tarts or pasties. Atsme 💬 📧 23:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think both of you received one. Long long ago in a galaxy far far away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and I saved mine: 2015 & 2020. Atsme 💬 📧 03:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Alas I had to give back my oven-ready torte after Brexit. I was really hoping for an "Olster fray". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That Pipkins link has now started appearing in my youtube suggestions. The odd thing is that I have never heard it in such high fidelity before, and my cheap Tesco (Merkians should think sort of Walmart) speakers enabled me to hear the mumbled words of the low pitched vocalist for the first time evah. I hope it doesn't become an earworm. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 22:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Group hug, everyone? (Except for that guy in the photo with pasties. Blech!) I certainly have a, um, lively talk page! In the talk section just above this one, Martin subjected me to Boney M. (check the You-Tube link if you haven't already, it's a musty must-see). So I wanna see Bobby Farrell dancing to that Pipkins, um, song(?). I don't really want an Olster fray, but I'd be fine with some fried oysters. In lieu of a joke about tortes, I'll just suggest taking a look at the hatnote at the beginning of Tort. (A lawyer who gets confused about that is a lawyer I don't want representing me. But representing a certain recent ex-US President, sounds about right.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Awww, I missed the group hug? I might consider hugging Mr. Pastie at this point. Some of the most exciting adventures in life involve pasties...and apparently tortes. --ARoseWolf 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And often scandalous.... e.g. Pastygate! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but a delicious scandal or two adds just the right touch of spice to the mix. Maple syrup makes for a sticky and tasty additive. --ARoseWolf 13:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What a bunch of Spice Girls! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And sticking with the honky-tonk theme.... here's the wonderful Gladys!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see how much Victoria Beckham has aged. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait till you see Ginger Spice... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Truly, you never fail to amaze me with what you come up with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, we should fix her up with the guy in the Santa hat. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he looks well up for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you say he looks hard up... oh, never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

They can make some ginger snaps together. Toast them over some Ginger beer. Won't that be fun! --ARoseWolf 19:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Oooh, worra bitch"! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, such a saucy Queen Bee!! --ARoseWolf 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am seriously upset that the Gladys link above didn't take me here. 2/10 please try harder, and wait a few moments for the second piano player. It'll be a brave wikignome who lasts to the end of that one. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 20:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah! 50 years on and... still sounds just as bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC) I'll see your Lieutenant Pigeon and I'll raise you one Glynn Poole

Welcome to Tryptofish's home for the mentally strange, very strange. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"See a clinic full of cynics, Who want to twist the peoples' wrist, They're watching every move we make,

We're all included on the list." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See the loonies on my talkpage, that is if you get the gist. They are all quite very nutty, and I think that Martin's pissed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and Burma Shave. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

hic! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

[107]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

[108]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

My kind of people here. I fit right in. --ARoseWolf 13:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Too right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

thoughts on neuromorphic computers chips

what are your thoughts on neuromorphic computers/ chips?

from what I understand thare is a company called Brainchip (some reference links below) that is actively commercializing the technology now

also intel has a chip called loihi which is currently a research chip but they plan to commercialize it in the near future

also thare are the brain reaserch supercomuters likeSpiNNaker and brainscales which are part of the Human Brain Project

INTEL: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/research/neuromorphic-computing.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/resources/press-kits-neuromorphic-computing.html

BRAINCHIP: https://www.google.com/search?q=BRAINCHIP&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS941US941&oq=BRAINCHIP&aqs=chrome..69i57.1313j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.youtube.com/c/BrainChipInc/videos

-id be happy to hear your thoughts

-thank you RJJ4y7 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello RJJ4y7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for asking me. I'll put my thoughts into two categories: (1) what I think personally as a neuroscientist, (2) how I feel it fits with Wikipedia in terms of how, or if, to write about it.

I think that neuromorphic computing has a great deal of potential – for the future. But if one considers the term "neuromorphic", there has to be a clear understanding of what it is about brain function to imitate. Otherwise, it's just making a subjective and speculative model that will probably not really be neuronal-like. A computer can learn, but that doesn't mean that it's learning the way that the human brain does. And we don't have an advanced understanding of how the human brain encodes information. So until the neuroscience catches up with the computer science, it's pretty much a matter of garbage in, garbage out.

As for Wikipedia, I think we have to be careful about WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and, if applicable, WP:COI. Please read all three of those links. Our coverage needs to comply with WP:NOTABILITY (and here, WP:CORP), which means there will have to be some consensus in secondary sources that any given company's products are significant, beyond what the company itself says in its press releases. I know that's a lot of WP: alphabet soup, sorry, but you will learn a lot of necessary information about how Wikipedia works if you take the time to read all of it, and all of it is directly relevant to your question.

Please don't feel discouraged by my answers; they are just my honest take on it. If you don't already know about it, WP:WikiProject Neuroscience might be interesting to you. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I need your objective and straightforward view

Tryp, I came across the article on Thomas de Waal because of something I believe was brought up on the Teahouse though its been so long it may have been AN/I (I know, that's a terrible place to visit most of the time). Anyway, I saw what I viewed as serious BLP issues and non-NPOV pushing. I need some of that honest take you offer here. Am I wrong in my stance on the talk page? Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy? I admit I may have confused 'Independent" in this case but BLP has so many restrictions on what can be placed in an article. We are to write a BLP very conservatively taking extra precautions than what would be okay for most subjects not about a living person. Criticism's are obviously permittable but from such a biased source which makes an allegation such as that the subjects work contains "inaccuracies and minimizations [that] have ... contributed to denial of the Armenian Genocide" and to have that claim made by a small number of people in an open letter that is the sole property of the cited source. Is that okay? Am I really taking a position that is so far from what WP:BLP actually says? Am I fundamentally wrong and am I not showing a willingness to correct my position in the face of being shown accurate information? Something I don't believe has happened to this point, at least not enough to alter my views. I swear I want an honest and objective viewpoint here because I don't think I can get that from the participants there and it's not really anything to involve an administrator. I just need some of that objective guidance you seem to offer so many here. -ARoseWolf 17:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. I took a quick look at Talk:Thomas de Waal, and it's a long talk page. Can you point me to a specific section of the talk page that you would like me to examine (and/or a particular diff or diffs of the article edit history)? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I'll point you to specific discussions but it wouldn't hurt to expand from those. The entire talk page is discussing BLP issues but as it pertains to my specific request here, the sections are a) on the Agos piece directly and b)initially on a section header but that section was long removed so it turned into a continuation of the sourcing issues. those are the primary areas where this was discussed. if I can point you to anything else left me know. All discussion was kept to the talk page as far as I know. --ARoseWolf 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read those two talk sections, but I haven't looked at any edits to the page that were based on those discussions, or any reverts. (If you want to point me to any specifics, I'll look further.) As I see it, the first editorial question to be addressed is whether there is any chance that the letter published in Agos is authentic, or a hoax. I don't know the answer to that. Offhand, my impression from what I've read so far is that it is likely to be authentic, unless another source is found that identifies it otherwise. The second question is whether or how to cover that letter on the page. (I haven't looked at what is on the page about it.) This is something that falls squarely in the category of "cite with attribution". So saying in Wikipedia's voice that de Waal was criticized for this would be wrong. But I don't think anyone really wants to do that. Instead, the proper format would be something like: "According to a public letter by Henry Theriault and thirteen cosignatories, de Waal was criticized for XYZ." Or: "An open letter by Henry Theriault and thirteen cosignatories criticized de Waal for XYZ." Or something like that. If editors disagree as to whether he actually used the word "genocide", then attribute that allegation as well: make that "XYZ" something like "what they considered to have been de Waal's use of the word genocide". It's also a reasonable option to refer to the letter as "an open letter in the Armenian publication Agos", to contextualize the perspective of the signatories.

I would support including such an attributed criticism. I agree with other editors that, so long as it is attributed, it is not a BLP violation. It is appropriate under NPOV, so long as the criticism is not overly lengthy as to constitute undue weight. I disagree with you on a couple of points. I disagree that it matters that the source is biased against the BLP subject; this is expected of critical points of view. And criticism is appropriate in a BLP, so long as it does not become undue. I disagree that there need to be secondary sources about the open letter. A primary source is reliable for the opinions of that source. Secondary sources would be a minimal requirement under BLP if anything written in Wikipedia's voice were to be critical. It's appropriate to have this – attributed – in a BLP and not just in a non-BLP about the conflict.

Any follow-up questions or clarifications are fine with me. But that's my objective view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No need for follow-up questions or clarifications. I thought by my own interpretation that such allegations should receive additional scrutiny because they are not coming from a third party source let alone multiple third party sources as WP:BLP indicates should be the case for any critical information included in a BLP, regardless of whether it is said in Wikipedia voice or attributed to a source, but I value your objective view and concede that I, apparently, have misread WP:BLP's intent on being extremely even overly conservative in our approach when writing a BLP. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to, you can ask for more opinions at WP:BLPN. And it certainly is good, in the long run, to err on the side of "first, do no harm" in BLPs, so your concerns were quite reasonable. Anyway, I'm glad to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your objective view is enough to convince me that I was probably being overzealous in my approach to do just that and err on the side of caution. I was looking for and hoping the editors wanting to change the article would present evidence that the letter was published or discussed in a source that didn't own exclusive proprietary rights to a letter that has never been confirmed delivered to the recipient or that it even exists outside this source. I was never against its inclusion, per se, only the source, whose editorial process is questionable when it comes to anything critical of their stated agenda, the promotion of Armenian issues. While that may not be uncommon it is also not so blatantly described like it is on their website. You did help immensely because I feel I can let this go now and it is what it is. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Martin

July songs

thank you for help for Martin - we all should help with the CCI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I'm very concerned about him, and I hope we all can help. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The last ordeal of the kind was this. Took some time and many helpers, but was successful in the end. He was blocked from January to April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As I think back over the years, I'm beginning to think that being wiki-friends with me is the kiss of death. DrChrissy, for real, and metaphorically, Jytdog, MPants, and now Martin. If I were to obsess about it more, I could doubtless come up with others. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC) (aka, The Dreaded Tryptofish!)

No. No. No. Firstly, leave death to real death, please. (Mentioned on Martin's page, that's what I have to deal with, memorial service on Tuesday.) Secondly: indef is undefined. I'd help with the CCI if I had any time but I have a FAR running, on top of the things I do daily, - very tedious work to check 80 or so references on a topic you know nothing about. Thirdly: in the case mentioned above, it was Diannaa who congratulated the released copyright violator when he was back to contributings. We made that article on the German Wikipedia, DYK, published while he was still blocked. I think Diannaa would be approachable. I can't, though, because she is my friend, and it would look like "using" that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I miss too many, here and in real life - more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral, which - as Martin said - puts things in perspective --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

When I said "the kiss of death", I'm really thinking, wistfully, of all the good colleagues that I miss. It's amazing, if I go back and look at earlier archives of my talk page, how many names I recognize, but haven't seen around in ages. Being a long-time contributor, one sees the passage of wiki-time, and youth is wasted on the young.

I think I've just said, at AN, my final word on the subject for now (famous last words, I always seem to go back and say something more). I'll just say here that I appreciate everyone who has been kind to Martin, and I'm confident that he does too. As for those who have been unkind, you reap what you sow. Obviously, he won't be around anytime soon to help with the CCI backlog. And I won't help either. And neither should anyone who regards Martin favorably. If the critics want to do the hard work, let them do it, by themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Famous last words, indeed. Facepalm. Someone even wanted briefly to have me site-banned, although it was quickly shut down and struck. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think an extended Wiki-break to consider a possible permanent one about right now wouldn't be such a bad idea. Seeing as apparently the Wiki-friends of Martin, of which I consider myself, supposedly are in denial. So I'm in denial and unwilling to change my own personal opinions to fit in with those of others despite always respecting consensus. I'm such a rebel. The bad faith assumptions are astounding and the fact they are tolerated rather than called out or it is unfathomable. It begs the question who is really in denial? So might as well give them something to talk about, or not. It really doesn't matter. I've been kind of put off by a few other things that have happened recently and as I noted, for my own personal health, it might be a good thing. I'm sold. I appreciate and have enjoyed my discussions with you, Tryp. I thank you for your honesty in giving me your opinion when I not only asked for it but needed it. Perhaps I will see you around again. You are, by far, my favorite fish. --ARoseWolf 19:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And you are, by far, my favorite wolf. Yes, I think it's becoming a badge of honor to be "in denial". (Just don't fall in de Nile!) It goes without saying that you are welcome for any help I might have been able to offer. Take whatever time you need to be away from here. (For those playing along at home, I said more about that at Martin's talk page, so I won't repeat it all here.) But I look forward to seeing you back around. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

PS: Anyone can see by scrolling to the top here, that I, myself, have taken time off, and it wasn't my first extended wikibreak. Admittedly, it started as a full-out retirement, and, well, you can all see how that turned out. (Shrug.) So I can say from experience that it can be a good thing to take a vacation from editing, and that it's a far better choice than continuing to edit when it feels uncomfortable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Great job handling this issue. I’m impressed by your attempt to uphold basic human decency. You’re a good person, dude. Oh, and rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. Your wikifriendship hasn’t killed me yet ! Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And, as you well remember, you and I started out being at one another's throats. And yet, we were both able to move past it with wonderful results. We even started David Rioch and W. Maxwell Cowan together. I value those kinds of wiki-friendships even more than those that started out easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Came here to read about what the hell is it with Martin?? who I know as somebody with a sense of humour similar to my own, and a penchant for the same type of vandal fighting that I indulge in, as he often beats me to it. I then felt sad about former friends and one enemy here on wikipedia. Noted that I have distant family connections to one of the funboy three, and have spent a wonderful few minutes on youtube listening to Lou Read, not the Dave Brubeck tune that you are thinking of, and Dusty Springfield fgs!! Thanks all. - Roxy the mindfulness dog 09:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite recently, things worked out so much better for you than they did for Martin, so I'm glad about that. I think you already know, but anyone watching here can see what it is with Martin at his talk page and at AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I always admire editors who attempt to help others & don't kick others when they're down. You're cool, Tryptofish. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, GoodDay, that means a lot to me! By the way, I just clarified some things about my (now defunct) mentorship offer, in response to your comment at AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

To my favorite Fish

Tryp, I had gotten online to place some orders for winter items and I decided to take a look at what has been happening with Martin since I left. I was sad to see the extent of the copyvio's that have been found so far. Sad for Martin and for those with the task of cleaning up these issues.

I was greatly offended by some comments at the AN, despite the authors of those comments believing no other editor was. Not about the situation surrounding the comments or even the expressed concern over martin's edits but the harshness of the comments themselves. And then you were turned on and that was where my offense grew more heated. Yes, I was caught up in those comments as a friend of Martin but only on the periphery. You were directly addressed ans singled out without even having to be named. That hurt.

You probably do not get this enough so I wanted to be someone to tell you. Regardless of all the negative things said about you indirectly or directly, I appreciate the process you go through on any particular issue. You advocate for those you care about here even as you point out their fallacies and shortcomings. Your initial responses are in kind with those being presented, sometimes brash but always in response. But as you process everything you do come full circle and where you see you may have been overly harsh or brash you revise your tone, directly addressing those you responded to. I am a lot like that.

It is, admittedly, a less than ideal initial reaction to be brash and stubborn but one, at least in my case, born out of my survival instincts. I am caring and loving, quite empathetic, despite my fight or flight nature. This isn't just a "persona" as one has suggested before. This is me to my core. I have never understood why it is necessary to compel another human being, whether by some misguided view of policy or desire to intervene on the behalf of, to see things from our personal perspective and then chastise them when they either can't or refuse to. I can hold an opinion and even "fight" for that opinion while honoring the policies of this project without being forced to conform to change my opinion simply to conform. I have learned so much from Wikipedia over the last two years, mostly positive. The one thing I have never forgotten because it is so engrained in me as part of my character wheel is my sometimes unrequited love for human beings (all) and my unabashed respect for individual experiences and the human equation above all else, every human as both a completed and expanding Song unto themselves while also being a part of a greater symphony of sound and color. So, I. Appreciate. You. (even more every day and with every interaction). Signed, Your Favorite Wolf 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What an amazingly lovely message! I cannot put into words how much I value it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Discouraged

I'm logging out for a while after this. Tryp, you are an awesome person. If I was ever in a situation where I needed a friend to stand beside me I would call on you. It's why I did call on you for advice because I am so passionate about my philosophies and I apply them to everything I read that sometimes I need a reminder to keep my feet on the ground. I interpret every policy and every guideline by those philosophies and I don't apologize for it. I have learned, over time, to trust my instincts about myself. I know my nature. Now it's my turn to offer you some words. Your message was right. You were on point with many things you said. However, your passion got the best of you on occasion throughout the discussion. It doesn't make someone like me appreciate you less, if anything I appreciate you more. Those that know you will. I can not express what you and Martin and Atsme have meant to me as Wiki-friends over the last several months. They are right. We are connected with a closeness. You made me laugh. That's something I haven't done much of since my recovery last year. How can I not be close with people that make me laugh? Wikipedia is not therapy but we are blind if we can't see the impact this community has on our psyche, on the health of other human beings who we call fellow editors here. You may feel discouraged right now but you are and continue to be an encouragement to me. I am retired as an editor for the foreseeable future but I will still read all about you all from your talk pages and I will still read your creations and follow your discussions because it emanates and radiates your Song to me. I love your Song. --ARoseWolf 16:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. It makes me happy to find that you are still looking in here from time to time. I'm actually OK in terms of my off-wiki frame of mind, but I do feel disappointed in the community here, and not for the first time.

As I have a bit of time to reflect on it, you are quite right that my passion got the best of me. I do realize that. That's on me – and, as in so much in life, there are things that we all would do differently if we were to do them again. On the other hand, I think it's right to say that having passion for treating people fairly is better than lacking passion for it.

Recently, I said here that it seems like my being wiki-friends with other editors is the kiss of death. I was saying that facetiously, of course, and I feel bad for those wiki-friends who are dealing with actual deaths of loved ones, something that is far more significant than anything that concerns me at this time. But what occurs to me is that, going back well more than a decade of editing here, every time that I have gotten some form of discouraged over the culture here has been when I felt upset over something that was happening to a wiki-friend. And that goes as well for every time that I have had a bunch of editors yell at me. Look at every time I have taken time off from editing (with the single exception, years ago, of when my mother died), and it will be just after I got into something heated over concern for someone else. (At least, I realize that I should step away instead of continuing too long in editing angry.) Overall, I have always gotten along well with other people here, even at times when we were on differing sides of a content dispute. But when I see someone I respect getting the shaft, it upsets me, and I become stubborn about it.

But, for goodness' sake, when another editor at AN simply expressed thanks to me, that editor got jumped on and berated. That's awful. As I said there, what's next, reverting barnstars?

And it seems to me that it shouldn't be too much to ask that Wikipedia editors demonstrate some basic mastery of reading comprehension. Near the end of that dispute, I wrote: "I want to be very clear that I'm not saying this about everyone, but it does apply to some here." And that was met with a chorus of well, that's true of some of the editors here, but you're wrong to make it about everyone. Am I in bizzaro land? And I lost count of the number of times I was accused of wanting Martin to be completely unblocked, even though I only proposed that he remain blocked from mainspace, and I explicitly endorsed the block he had gotten. In fact, when I wrote that we need to do better than to have so many discussions descend into a "cesspit", the response, when you look back at it, was exactly the kind of free-for-all I was saying we shouldn't have (which ironically proved my point). FFS!

I'm going to sit back until I feel like I've gotten enough distance, enough perspective. And then, I have some very good ideas about the noticeboard culture here I've been starting to think about, that might get the ball moving in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. Anyone looking at what you actually said could not honestly believe you were advocating for a full unblock. Even if that was your personal internal wish you never conveyed that. You offered a compromise to allow Martin to remain blocked from being able to continue any disruption in mainspace while also allowing him the most of an opportunity to directly help fixing the issues he caused. I found the attack on the editor that thanked you to be quite distasteful and highly uncivil. It goes against the very spirit of collegial discussion. Not saying you were perfect in that discussion either but I understand them directing heat at you for things you said but not another editor that simply agreed with you and thanked you for your proposal. That is not appropriate on any level for any editor and they should have been shutdown immediately by administrators. I followed and read the entire discussion. I hate involving myself in AN/I discussions because they almost never are positive by their very nature even if they are necessary. Tryp, you and I are so much alike. I'm here right now because there is someone I have come to respect, even though we probably don't agree on much, that I feel they are somewhat, albeit on a smaller scale, getting the shaft and I am so stubborn about things like that. I can admit that. I had to rewrite and tone down my initial reaction because it really isn't about the individual editors and getting too upset about it helps nothing. We are dealing with a pervasive attitude within the community that a lot of good faith editors just kind of fall into. They have the best of intentions in what they are saying, at least initially, but it's really, really bad for the encyclopedia and a collaborative community. Anyway, I hope you are gaining the perspective you seek and I will check in from time-to-time. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I think that's a very fair assessment. As you can see, I just undid those "discouraged" templates. It turns out to have been just a passing feeling. I am gradually getting perspective, and I think getting perspective is important. I mentioned before that I'm looking to find a way to make something constructive and positive out of this, and my thoughts are gradually coming into focus. Changing wiki-culture is a slow and long-term process. (When, years ago, WP:CDARFC failed, ArbCom was useless in dealing with administrator misconduct. But, over the years, as the concerns increasingly came to be "in the air", ArbCom evolved to where, today, it's very efficient at it – if anything, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.) And I value finding ways to move things in the right direction.

I've learned through experience that, for changing the culture, proposals and RfCs rarely work. It's almost inevitable that such proposals fail. And open-ended discussions (such as at Village Pump Idea Lab) also just tend to spin their wheels. What works is, somewhat surprisingly, writing a new essay. When I wrote WP:LAZYLAZY, it was striking how quickly those flawed arguments stopped appearing. Actually surprising. People started citing WP:2WRONGS almost immediately. What works particularly well is crafting something that really encapsulates the problem in a readable way, and then (here is the kicker!) making a shortcut to it that is based on the name of a fictional character (bonus points if it's someone from Shakespeare!), in a way that it's easy to say: Please stop being a WP:(name). Exhibit A is WP:MALVOLIO. Everyone knows that essays don't have "official status". And yet, saying don't be a WP: something settles a dispute in a way that a plea to just stop doing something does not. This time, it's going to be Dickens rather than Shakespeare, but, stay tuned. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing insightful to add. As the person who expressed kudos (which is clearly more than thanks) to you for acting, among other, out of kindness, I can only endorse my statement. That this was interpreted as thanking you for getting upset and stubborn was probably to be expected. I actually didn't feel attacked at all, but read the response as a mildly indirect dig at you. No point in analyzing it any further, but I wanted to make sure you know I wasn't personally offended in the least.

Personal sympathies aside, Martinevans123's talk page is one of those water coolers at which a number of prolific editors enjoy stopping by, appearing to appreciate his contributions (obviously not copyvios, duh). I hope an arrangement is found and he returns, and I still believe you could be helpful in making that work. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for stopping by to say that, as well as thanks for the kudos that led to this. I think that you were very forgiving in your response to what was said to you. I'm glad that you didn't feel hurt. And I agree that it's best to leave it at that.

About Martin, the first thing that occurs to me to say is that I definitely do not want him to feel any responsibility for any of the conflicts I got myself into, or anything about my mood etc. All of that is on me, and on me alone.

About him returning, I'm glad to see that he is still communicating at his talk page, with other editors who are looking to improve content. Beyond that, I want to leave things up to him. Only he knows what does or does not feel comfortable to him. If he does decide eventually that he wants to return and work to make things right, I will of course support him in that and be happy about it. As for whatever role I might play, I'm very sensitive to the fact that some editors said at AN that I was making it harder for him to return, in terms of community trust. I'm taking that very seriously, and my top priority is for me to do no harm. At least as things stand now, I think I ought not to offer to take on any formal mentor-like role, because the last thing I want is for that to become a distraction. I can and would, however, simply work as another individual editor with no special standing, to advise and help him. And I'm sure I can be helpful with that.

Anyway, thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wholly understandable. I sounded more insensitive than I wished to, and am flogging myself now for appearing to trying to guilt you into feeling responsible. I liked your offer a lot, and I lack the competence to make it. That's what made me write what I wrote. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. You are the least insensitive person around here, and nothing felt to me like guilting. (I'm not even sure what you referred to about guilting, and there's no need to explain it to me.) I continue to appreciate your appreciation of the offer I made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize as I feel I misinterpreted some of your comments, Tryptofish. I was rather dismayed by your comment, which you retracted, about CCI editors, but proceeded to interpret the rest of your messages as in that tone. I now see where you are coming from, and so far I agree with your assessment of systemic problems at noticeboards; it's easy and common to pick out the tone of a message rather than address (or refute) the main points. (I've only been active here for a bit, and that was my first time participating in an AN/ANI discussion—yikes.) A perhaps pertinent point: Humor needs to be well-timed to defuse tense situations. Flippant responses to issues which cause editors a lot of painful work (like copyright violations) will be interpreted as dismissive. Humor is often a light here, but it can also be an aggravating flashlight pointed at the faces of frustrated editors; that's what happened to me, at least. Ovinus (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ovinus, I appreciate that very much. I've noticed your work with Atsme, and I think that's great. If that was your first time commenting at AN/ANI, yes, it can be quite a trial by fire. Err on the side of taking it easy until you are sure of your footing. (And that's nothing compared to being the filing party in an ArbCom case, believe me!) This was something that, in terms of my own mistakes among the many mistakes made by many users, was less about mistimed humor than about my replying too many times and with too much anger. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I'm lurking here as I always do. For those who get into the "thick" of it, Wikipedia is a dystopian alternate universe with where one must understand that some items are short-term hopeless where the bad guys can win, and where viciousness is tolerated as long as they are clever at working the Wikipedia system. And where folks are allowed to to stick the knife in your back as long as they do it in a wiki-clever way. I think that you are someone who has more idealistic civilized expectations at the day-to-day level and so have a lot of really bad moments. For me, at the strategic level I believe that I "see structure" and how it works overall, and how to fix it, even though that might take another 5 years, and that's what keeps me optimistic and active. Maybe some outlook along those lines would provide a way to navigate for an ultra-valuable person like you to stay active. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I have to say thank you! Ultra-valuable – it's hard to stay discouraged with something like that! You are quite astute to describe me as someone who tends to live in the "what could possibly be", rather than in the "what exists right now". I've long been that way in real life as well as on-wiki. It makes me good at seeing and articulating possibilities, and vulnerable to getting frustrated when other people don't see what I see. (Don't get me started about all the missed opportunities in the US government!) As you know, I can navigate content disputes and policy writing pretty well (if I say so myself). But as I already said, what really trips me up is when I see someone else, someone I care about, getting treated badly. But, enough of that. One of the things that gets my optimism back is when I figure out a way to turn a bad experience into something I can write, that I think is clever, that will make things better. So stay tuned for WP:[something about guillotines and Twitter and ANI]! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

(friendly stalker comment) Don't be discouraged Tryptofish. I know I've been here just a few months, but I have seen firsthand how difficult and toxic the community can be sometimes. But despite how repulsive discussion environments can become, you can always step aside and work in the less-maintained corners of the site. Try writing some content, or chatting with some long-term users. I've met some awesome editors in the last few months. If you're feeling a bit down with the community, just try your hardest to ignore AN and the like. There are always other things to do. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CollectiveSolidarity, and welcome to my talk page! It's nice to meet you. Indeed, those approaches are quite generally good advice, and have worked well for me in the past. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I said that I was going to write a new essay on something having to do with guillotines and Twitter and ANI – and here it is! WP:DEFARGE. Also, a ping to CactiStaccingCrane, who asked me to let them know when I had written it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Full title: Don't Knot Beside The Guillotine. EEng 17:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you did knot say that! So if you do knot do not do.... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, knots are more about WP:ROPE. Let's keep our methods of wiki-execution properly distinct. (So long as WP:HUNG stays red. I mean red as in red-linked, all you people with dirty minds.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a really nice essay :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I just cited the essay at WP:ANI. Would be ironic if doing so caused a pile-on Bon courage (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  It kind of did, actually, which kinda proves the point of my essay. I'm very pleased to see that the whole damn thing got closed ([109]). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, "Never change, ANI". Hard bitten as I am, even I was surprised to see the WP:SBA which followed though. Bon courage (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Deep Blue

If you come by a few minutes of free time, could you check out the short article on Deep Blue (great white shark), and then use the talk page to make some brief recommendations for improvement? You’re welcome to make changes of course, but if you choose not to, it would be nice to have some outside direction and critical opinion. I’m not the author of the article, but I would like to improve it. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and the first thing that I noticed was the use of stuff like "didn't" instead of "did not", which strikes me as trivial. So I'll say that here. I'll make a broader point on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Question (2)

Just curious... how soon does the arbcom decision in this case take effect? Would it be effective at the point the decision sufficiently passes or does the case have to be formally closed first? It appears there has already been a block action for one editor but it may not be related to the ArbCom case. Atsme 💬 📧 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It would unambiguously take effect when an ArbCom Clerk posts a message to the user's talk page, officially notifying them of the result. Arguably, it would be a mistake to test the limits once the remedy has reached the number of votes to make it pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you might be asking because of a note I placed after a !vote by one of the banned users in a discussion that you and I both watch. Even if that !vote was not a ban violation (and, given the timing, I don't think it was a ban violation), it's traditional to make a note of these things because the editor who closes the discussion can take that into account when assigning weight to comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting

I was always too focused on the ancestral misinformation to consider something like this having an influence. I'm still trying to digest it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess that, just as some breeds arise from particular countries or geographic regions, some can also arise from certain racial or cultural groups of people. But I'm no expert. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Palladian architecture

August songs

Thank you for having helped rescuing Palladian architecture for FA, - great to see it today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! But I have to give the lion's share of the credit to my wiki-friend KJP1. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

... who of course also got thanks - today: "my" concert of the year (so far) is on the Main page, but not pictured, and I don't understand why --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

look at the church where I heard VOCES8 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing the wiki culture

I think that the writing is on the wall now that Wikipedia will fade into obscurity if we kept doing things as it is right now. The community is being rolled in dramas, biting newcomers is all the rage, articles about important topics is poorly maintained, etc. Let's get straight to the point, what do you think that Wikipedia should change first? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about [110]. CactiStaccingCrane, thanks for your interest, and for starting the discussion where I commented. You may also want to see what I say on my user page, if you scroll way, way down below the oversized Ukrainian flag. (I can also recommend Iridescent's talk page as a particularly worthwhile water cooler where such things get discussed.) The three things you list here (drama, biting, article maintenance) have been issues ever since I started here in 2008 (aka the Cretaceous Period), so they aren't new, although I think they are progressively getting worse. I think that the way that users treat one another is the most essential area to improve, because fixing that will facilitate fixing the rest. I'm still getting my thoughts together, but I'll link here when I get that essay ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding: WP:2WRONGS is an essay of mine that, while not coming close to solving the broader cultural problems, does provide advice on a specific kind of ploy used by those who make noticeboards unpleasant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(friendly stalker comment) Tryptofish hits the nail on the head here @CactiStaccingCrane. The key issue here is that there are always going to be some sour eggs trying to POV push certain articles, run the newcomers off the site, and stir the pot over in the discussion namespaces. I've seen what you've done over at Vital Articles, but there's one thing that I think both that WikiProject and the site needs to renew themselves : Fresh blood. I've met plenty of friendly faces who have joined the site only in the last year or so, and I see many of them as potentially great editors in the making. There is always going to be no shortage of stubborn users, but I saw over at RFA that many of these newer Wikipedians remained much more civil than our veterans. Perhaps this is a sign that we should look towards the future? At the moment, Wikipedia looks a lot like Japan in regards to the makeup of its user base. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ow

I am experiencing actual pain in trying to restrain myself from challenging your non-admin closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just sent you some painkillers. Actually, I'm pretty pleased with it, if I say so myself. Wouldn't it be fun if we edit warred over it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Not as fun as edit warring over WP:Edit warring, as happened last night. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia – wouldn't you know it! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Your input

Please read this, and see if you can spot the 2 statements that support woo and that should negate the close. I see it along the same lines as allowing woo into our medical articles because we are dealing with layperson perceptions, not science-based facts. Challenging a close requires a well-presented reason, and I'm a long way from being proficient at challenging a close. If this perception is allowed to remain, what's next – presenting acupuncture as a proven science? Atsme 💬 📧 11:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Happy to elaborate on the closure if necessary, but I'm baffled as to what woo might be. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that my own opinion about the AfD issues is abundantly clear, to put it mildly. But I just read Vanamonde's closing statement carefully, and I found it to be thoughtful and well-informed. It was clearly based on an impartial reading of the discussion as a whole. And, frankly, if I set aside my personal opinions and were to pretend that I came to the discussion as an uninvolved editor, I would have found the same result. There is no way to read it as a consensus to keep, and there is a possible rationale to read it as a consensus to delete, but I have figured for the past several days that the most likely outcome would be no consensus.

Deletion discussions tend to be binary and heated, but, meh. I think it would be a waste of time to take this to deletion review. And I made an edit a few days ago to the list (anticipating this result), that alerts readers to check what our other pages say about changing definitions of "breed" over time. And I see that another editor removed some of the listed breeds that were inadequately sourced. I'm keeping the list page on my watchlist, and will watch for any attempt to make it OR or POV (and I'll support edits that further clarify the issues). That's good enough for me.

It's time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I just had another thought. There is still the possibility of a merge discussion, and that would be consistent with the AfD discussion. I'd oppose a simple merge that would create an embedded list within the Dog fighting page, but I think a very good result would be text that names breeds that have been historically associated with dog fighting and then presents the source material that calls such characterization into question. I'd be happy to help write that. I think it would be a bad idea to make the merge as a bold edit, but an RM discussion, keeping in mind that there might be opposition, would be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. FWIW, I believe the text you propose writing will be an excellent way to pull together all the policy-based arguments at this AfD, regardless of whether it's in a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good! (By the way, not having recently seen you at my talk page, I'm glad to see you here – welcome!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my tardiness, Tryp – I think your another thought may well be the shortest distance between two points so please take the lead. I will respond to V on his UTP so as not to disturb yours any further. Thank you!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the idea. I'm going to wait several days for the doggy-dust to settle, then I'll get it underway. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I created a discussion page so as not to clutter your UTP. Atsme 💬 📧 14:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but I'm swamped, so give me a couple of days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Why I'm an unreliable source

Definition of "woo":

1. To court someone romantically. As in: "He wooed her with promises of fidelity."
2. Utter nonsense, not to be trusted. As in: "He wooed her with promises of fidelity."

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can also be doubled. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And then there's this – soon coming to your neighborhood. Atsme 💬 📧 11:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, Tryptofish! Yes, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what did and didn't work at the GMO RfC. Valereee (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gladly! I can give you a short version here. (For those playing along at home, it's about this: [111].) I can also comment elsewhere, depending upon what you and Xeno would prefer. To some extent, it would be easier for me if I could respond to specific issues as they would apply to the new RfC, as in "if we did xyz, would that work or not?" But I think there are a few things that definitely work in any case.

1. Have a very strict set of rules about editor conduct, set in advance. The moderators need to be able to step in right away, and shut down anything that is leading to disruption.
2. Avoid editors getting into lengthy back-and-forths with one another. Options include having each editor comment only in their own section (as with ArbCom case talk pages, for example), limiting threaded discussions to the talk page of the RfC, setting word limits, or having editors address the moderators instead of each other.
3. If there are to be choices between multiple possibilities (as with the multiple wording proposals at the GMO RfC), allow editors to add new proposals as the discussion goes along. Otherwise, you risk editors discovering through discussion that all of the original proposals are flawed, and saying that it was a flawed RfC. Instead, you can just say, "OK, propose a new option that addresses your concerns, and we'll see what the community thinks of it." On the other hand, don't let editors delete or modify proposals after commenting has started, because that creates problems for editors who have already commented on the previous versions. Instead, let them add a new and revised version.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you be willing to help out at User:Valereee/draft? Valereee (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and I've watchlisted it. I'm swamped with other things, so it may take me a few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries, mostly just wanted to see if anything jumped out at you. Valereee (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

edit war on list of fw fish

hey! Its realfakebezalbob and the cold war on lwf (list of freshwater fish) has heated up, am I wrong to revert deletions of things like

1. availability
2. physical appearance

as that would fall under "common knowledge" and "topic specific knowledge" as detailed in Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed

thanks if you dont hear back from me its because ive been banned, for disagreeing with certain individuals views on sourcing Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I know that I said a while back that I would try to help at Talk:List of freshwater aquarium fish species, and I apologize that I didn't get around to it. I'm incredibly busy in real life right now (probably won't be on WP at all for the next few days), and I have numerous other on-wiki requests being made to me.

My best advice to you about avoiding any kind of sanction is to stick to the talk page of the list, and don't make any edits at all to the list itself for the near future. It's never a good idea to add content without sourcing, on the grounds that it's common knowledge. I know there are things that are widely known in the aquarium hobby, but they still need to be sourced. And it's really bad to edit war over it. The other editors there are experienced editors, and your best bet is to really listen carefully to what they say to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoa! Tryp should feel so flattered. It's not every day there is a war over his fish bowl (tongue in cheek). Disclaimer: Edit warring is bad and should never happen. Fish bowl wars are okay just take the fish out first, please. --ARoseWolf 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

fish should never be put in bowls in the first place, lol (not enough surface area for water exchange/ to small!) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's abominable when people do that to goldfish or fancy cichlids. Not as bad for bettas, but there really needs to be some filtering and water movement. But we fish can cut the wolves some slack. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm Typo Fish!

Or so it seems. [112] (see near the bottom). Gotta love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Tsk! Tsk! You are so Trypto-graphical. (Not a typo) --ARoseWolf 20:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't even original. Trolls have been calling me that since the Pleistocene. But I still find it funny! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the Pleistocene, those were the good old days. --ARoseWolf 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

[113]. Quite the fossil record! LOL. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You are my hero. --ARoseWolf 12:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And you're mine! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The bot disallowed File:Necco-Sweethearts-Box-Small.jpg ([4]), but not to worry. Plectorhinchus gibbosus: that's all I'm gonna say. --Fish

September 2022

Vandalism on wp:ARS

Your edit reversions on this page are vandalism. I added an article for improvement and you reverted it.

Why are you part of a group in which you harass its members? 2A00:1FA0:8C0:42F6:0:5E:9652:5E01 (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) We could also place a warning on your talk page for casting aspersions against other editors. You weren't just adding an article, you were attacking a fellow editor in the edit that @Tryptofish reverted. But seeing as it is a dynamic IP address that would be fruitless so here is your warning. Stop casting aspersions per WP:NPA and remember to be civil in your discussions with others. Claiming another editor is harassing you when they are clearly not isn't helpful. --ARoseWolf 13:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

And... blocked. Give my regards to Putin. Thanks, ARoseWolf. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Dammit, I wish I could think of a way to expand or GA Plectorhinchus gibbosus. The DYK could be "Did you know... that Harry Hotlips has a humpback?" What a missed opportunity! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a GA? It's worth looking for more sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Appeals & BoT elections

I know your contributions have nosedived over the last two years - so have mine, but do go as ballistic as you can over the WMF, something has to change if all the dedication we oldies have put into the project is not to have been in vain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, with a smile at the way you said that. (For those playing along... we're talking about [114].) As you said at Iri's talk, I too voted for those candidates who indicated an interest in working with the editing community, including technical support – and most definitely not for those who seemed most interested in creating "safe spaces" and righting great wrongs.

There are so many things that raise my ire about WP that I just don't have the bandwidth to try to address everything. And I'm not entirely invested in the concept that WP has to succeed. For me, it has always been an interesting experiment, rather than a movement I would want to help and protect. Help those fellow editors who deserve and need support – yes, absolutely. But the overall project: whatever happens, happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Motorist behavior and incivility

A few weeks ago, I gave the finger to a motorist who cut me off while I was crossing the street.

This is a topic I've been discussing outside of Wikipedia for a while now. There is some disagreement about how this uptick in bad motorist behavior in the US became noticeably worse. I trace it to what has been called the "Trump effect". After Trump was elected, people began to break more norms and ignore rules more than before. There has been a measurable increase in motor vehicle accidents and fatalities at a national level. On a local level, where I live, after Trump was elected, we began to see more people ignoring stop signs, running red lights, and an increase in the number of pedestrians who've been hit by cars, only to have the vehicles run off and never return. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Pedestrians in San Francisco jaywalk risking an accident. A passing vehicle might honk as they stomp on the brake only for said pedestrian to curse in return something like "double-dumbass on you" which is quite shameful. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's new in terms of the record breaking traffic statistics, particularly when it comes to fatalities, which I've seen. There's never been anything like it in decades. "Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a 16-Year High in 2021" (May 2022). "Pedestrian fatalities up 13%", according to that chart. More locally, where I live, the number of pedestrians hit by cars is off the historical charts. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As a US president, Trump was hardly a role model. As one of America's richest people, his wealth was inherited. As a university graduate there are still open questions regarding his academic CV. His behaviour, speech, and body language is what Brits often call 'as common as muck'. The UK's Boris Johnson wasn't much better despite Eton; he appears to have broken a lot of social norms. Perhaps the new 'Plain Jane' in No.10 will reintroduce more decorum into politics and society. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• There's a report on this in the NYT: Pedestrian Deaths Spike in U.S. as Reckless Driving Surges. This lists a variety of factors but there's no mention of the Trump effect. The pandemic gets some of the blame due to "salience saturation" and "social disengagement" but there's lots of other factors like aging populations and the shift from sedans to SUVs and other outsize vehicles. Here in London, there's lots of other factors including Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and a new blanket 20 mph speed limit. The most dangerous thing I see are the new e-scooters. I'm quite comfortable on a pedal cycle but those things are scary. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• As I said above, I link it to the Trump effect. I haven’t seen anyone else make the link. In the US, there’s an enormous amount of published literature on the rise of incivility linked to the rise of Trump, including the phenomenon of contagion and emboldening. Nobody that I know of has made the link to motorist behavior. Instead, they usually blame decaying infrastructure. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I logged on and saw that I had 12 new messages, and that they had something to do with incivility. I briefly thought that I had stumbled into some sort of new wiki-drama, although I don't remember any recent incivility on my part.

Although the world seems to know already what this discussion is about, for anyone who doesn't, it's about what I said here.

Personally, I think it's largely the Trump effect, although hot weather and pandemic fatigue are involved as well. Here in the colonies, there's a very real feeling of things having gone off the deep end. (I heard a news report this morning about a public library that was presented with a demand that they remove 400 or so "objectionable" books – zero of which were actually in that library. The head librarian had protestors showing up at her home and threatening her family.) And I reject the idea that there is any kind of equality between Donald and Boris. Boris never tried to overthrow the UK government. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I heard the same report about libraries on NPR right after you posted. I think my blood pressure went through the roof. I’m starting to think one day the news is going to kill me. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same one that I heard. There's also the phenomenon of people starting fist fights on airplanes. I wonder sometimes whether there have been periods like this in the past (Lynchings? Joe McCarthy? Vietnam and the protests and assassinations?), but I honestly think this is something pretty much unprecedented. I try to "calm" myself by visualizing Trump being perp-walked in handcuffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the effect we are discussing here is something different than the Trump derangement syndrome. The latter is when people (like yours truly) overreact to the political right, causing smug amusement on the right; see also Owning the libs. But the effect here is one of deciding that social norms just don't apply anymore. If Trump can boast that he can shoot someone in public and get away with it, then why can't someone else run a red light? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

On another note, water is falling from the sky today, and my hypothesis is correct, you will get wet if you stand in it. --ARoseWolf 16:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely another note! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting

Education, wow – I was just mentioning something about that over at Pit bull. I think it's needed. Atsme 💬 📧 23:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope that goes well, of course. Just so you know, I'm not all that interested in that content area (dog breeds) per se, but it's more of an interest to try to find solutions to editing disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There would not be disputes in that topic area if we did not have the Nomopbs type advocacy editors creating disruption because they mistakenly believe pit bulls are all about genetics, and that aggression is genetic. If they believe it occurs in dogs then they must believe it occurs in people. Now isn't that interesting? How do you think they would get along with that presumption in a BLP? Atsme 💬 📧 21:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ha! That's a very good point! Come to think of it, fighting breeds are to some degree associated with racial minorities, at least in the US. Yes, we definitely need to expand BLP to include BL Pups. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just occurred to me: we are discussing this here. I'm discussing BLP as something that can be taken too far, in the talk section right below this one. And you and I are discussing dubious accusations of racism at your talk page. Somehow, all connected, sort of. Sunspots, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, but it gets better. First this....and then I stumbled across this, so maybe your sun spot theory is plausible. The latter article includes a comment about people using that analogy on social media (which I was not aware of) and that doing so indicates ulterior motives (she is assuming bad faith), and of course she flips it around to support her POV. Maybe she works for the WMF. On a serious note, being book smart certainly has its advantages, but practicing and applying what one learns over years of real world experiences is equally as important, if not more so. Think about Jane Goodall's research, and what she knows about chimpanzees, genetics and their behavior after living with them. Quoting from her website: Our relationship to other primates is a dynamic one – and as Jane has often said, “Chimpanzees, more than any other living creature, have helped us to understand that there is no sharp line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. It’s a very blurry line, and it’s getting more blurry all the time.” Atsme 💬 📧 00:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with that!

Regarding this, if I might add my two cents here, I believe your suggested, and entirely reasonable, edits will be met with forceful opposition from The BLP Corps. As I've written elsewhere, many of those editors have no personal experience with publishing in the world of academic/industrial scientific research, and by extension they do not recognize the notability, significance, and professional impact of multiple Expressions of Concern (EoC's) attached to a principal investigator. It seems to me that many of those editors interpret EoCs as minor editorial suggestions rather than the explicit alarms they actually are, despite the EoCs being formally published by the journals, reported by independent, secondary, reliable sources, and included in public clearinghouses like PubMed. Take it from me and the scars on my back: reporting those reliably sourced and notable facts on that page is a Very Bad Thing. Unless you have an asbestos suit you might want to consider doing something more productive like, oh, chewing on fish hooks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know... that it's prudent to check your fly? --Trypto flying fish

And for the record, Retraction Watch is a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. (And I was quite appalled to see the number of previous BLPN threads about this guy, going back over years!) Part of the reason I brought it up is my own experience in real life as a professional academic scientist: that stuff is full-out scientific misconduct, full stop. I've got more than a little experience navigating content disputes with unreasonable people, and I know how to strike a compromise if necessary. And if necessary, I know how to walk away. But this is something that I feel is worth the effort, and I'm cautiously optimistic that I can achieve a reasonable discussion with at least some of these editors. (Fish hooks: do they have something to do with DYK? Hmm... I guess I'll chew on that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Food for thought. --ARoseWolf 20:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I hate to jinx it, but as of now, there are two responses, both supporting my proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've changed my mind about the whole thing. On reading the thoughts of some opposers who showed up, I think they make a valid argument. I'm not adverse to changing my mind. (This isn't caving in; it's actually changing my mind.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

[115]. Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, another sock has just fallen out of the drawer. I would report it myself, but I am so tired of dealing with that guy's socks... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's just a quacking IP, and the page is already semi-ed. And an admin has already seen it. I don't think an IP block would do much. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Socks aside, I will add that I'm seeing pretty clearly what you warned me about. It's pretty lonely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry. I'd try to help, but these fish hooks are oh so yummy! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't blame you, but it's unfortunate that, per Yeats, one side is filled with passionate intensity and the other lacks all conviction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If you send me an email I will respond with some entertaining, new information concerning both you and this topic. Straight from the Twilight Zone. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's tempting! Concerning me? Unfortunately, I pretty much never do email, for privacy reasons (just imagine if the sockmaster knew who I was in real life!). So you cannot link to it here? I think I'll do a little searching of my own, online. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Yes, it concerns you directly. Here it is. Funny stuff from a "patent lawyer" based in the PRC where - and perhaps it is poor sportsmanship on my part to note this - WordPress.com is blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's hilarious! So I'm allegedly Leonid Schneider. No I'm not. (Just compare what our bio page says about his education with where I've said on-wiki that I went.) And you're my sockpuppet! Ah, but it's written by "WeiShi Meng", who just happens to be an online alter-ego of guess-who ([116]). And check out User:LeonidJoJoSchneider! So let's chalk it up to my poor sportsmanship to say that the, um, sockmaster, is a psychopathic asshole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget User:JoJoJoshuaLCherry. Or all the Amazon book reviews provided by "Weishi Meng." "Weishi" has only reviewed books by one author...care to guess who? And for the record, I am not Leonid Schneider. Or Joshua Cherry. Or Ivan Oransky. Or Adam Marcus. Or The Walrus. Or the Egg Man. Coo Coo Ca Choo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fish no like walrus. And too much cholesterol in eggs. (And I am Spartacus!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you talking to yourself? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Because I'm so much fun to talk to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No! I'm talking to myself! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You talkin' to me? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Remember when I wrote this? Are you feeling the pain yet? It all ends with...Deep Hurting! I feel it too, you know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my memory is still good enough to remember that! I've been around this rodeo long enough that I don't feel too bad about it. (Heck, I just came off a mess at ANI that was worse than this.) I don't much care that we are keeping the book list and the photo. We are going to get something onto the page about the journal problems. It's just going to take time. But I'm pretty confident about it. It will be a net win. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Man, but I dig your optimism. That said, I am willing to wager one of these that a certain non-sock editor - and I'm not going to write who - will revert your new content within, oh, ten minutes of its addition. Maybe it's me, maybe it's the page history, but I'm optimistic (there's that word again) that I'd win that wager. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering the retail price of WikiScotch, I take your bet. (And you can make another bet on how long it will take me to go to AE if that happens. I'm not naive about these things.) And I'm just about to make the edit, so go ahead and set your clock! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been about 10 minutes, so drinks are on me! (Of course, it's still going to get reverted eventually.) But, damn, making that edit sure felt good. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

You win! My advice: drink it only to excess.

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to belly up to the bar! To tell you the truth, I'm actually pleasantly surprised that no drama has broken out yet, even after a couple of hours. If I weren't such a nice fish, I'd start singing Don't Cry for Me, Argentina. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and sing: "The truth is I never left you." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's too bad that I can't carry a tune. In addition to those diffs, the latest footwear also put defamatory content (now revdeled) on a Nobelist's page (doubtless to make a point). Sure looks like that sock needs to find a new hobby, or maybe some antipsychotic medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sock block

A block of socks --Tryp

[117] I'm pretty sure they're both socks, performing a mating ritual so they can breed the next generation on that article. I've had too much involvement there to block them myself though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. It's obvious that the one today is the newest member of the sock farm, and their edits show that they are beginning to figure out how to get autoconfirmed. I have a hunch (can't post on-site) that the one who criticizes AF is actually someone else making a clean start. Life is too short for me to file an SPI for each new sock who shows up, so I'm waiting for another admin to come along and see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For those playing along, we are talking about: [118]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And...  Done [119]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't bring me to ANI for an involved block or page protection! I figure the obvious socking issue is separate enough from my earlier involvement that ending the disruption is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

How much are you going to pay me? On the contrary, you made me proud that I ended up supporting your RfA. (It's not even close to being "involved".) Good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A possible explanation

Regarding this, please keep in mind that I might not be smart, but I am slow. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

And I may be all wet, but I'm a fish. Anyway, I replied there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I just read the talk archives at that article. Wow! Talk about weird. I hesitate to draw too many comparisons here, but the personalities coming out in the archives feels like they are in the same league as this or this in terms of rhetorical register if not in actual harm done. Anyway, good job shepherding, as it were. jps (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really crazy, isn't it? The amount of delusional behavior, even just within the sockfarm, is pretty appalling. Anyway, it looks like about 24 hours and no revert yet, which is better than I expected. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up fun

Although the provenance of "Weishi Meng" was never in doubt, I nevertheless assume you will get a chuckle from this 2019 Tweet I stumbled upon. It seems a certain delusional, psychopathic asshole has no problem (and no skill at) stealing internet images. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, yet another reason why I stay off of all online social media. On the plus side, our BLP page has gone remarkably quiet. I've unwatched BLPN a while ago, so I don't know if anything has cropped up there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, it has been all quiet on the sockpuppet front, both at the article and BLPN. Can such a sleep last? Perchance to dream. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

To be a sock, or not to be a sock. Is that a question? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether tis ignobler in the mind to ignore / The retractions and expressions of concern / Or to make sockpuppets against a sea of troubles. OK, I'll stop now JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Alas, poor sockmaster! I knew him well. Now I'll stop, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Trypto, you appeared to state here that you agreed with me on removing the quotes [120]. There is now something of a disruption by another editor going on there over my removing the quotes. Could you reiterate your position? I was under the impression that consensus was 2 against 1 in favor of removal at the time. Geogene (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You are forgetting that FunkMonk agreed with the quotes, and he has been doing the peer review. So that is 2 editors who agreed and you who opposed, and then Tryp made a comment. Atsme 💬 📧 18:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Where did say they approve of the quotes? Diff please. And why do you and GAR reviewers have more say about content than other editors? [121], [122]. Geogene (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You should probably pay more attention to the discussions on the TP and spend less time edit warring over material you simply don't like, and quote essays in your edit summary as if it counts as a valid reason to revert. Atsme 💬 📧 18:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Can't hurt, I'd think?, that's an endorsement? Of what -- that was a one-line reply to several different proposals of yours. You need to spend less time trying to read other editors' minds (mine, at least) because you're terrible at it. Geogene (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Let FunkMonk explain it himself since he is the one doing the review and helping prepare the article for FAC. Now you are projecting onto me exactly what you've been doing to me, and you are here complaining about it? You keep pushing a debunked POV by thinking certain breeds of dogs are genetically predisposed to being more aggressive than other dogs on the planet, all of which is not supported by science. You have been advised of this repeatedly. Perhaps this literature review will convince you: Scientific research demonstrates that no truth exists in these common stereotypes (Cohen & Richardson, 2002; Patronek et al., 2000). This literature review seeks to debunk the myths about pit bulls and address the psychological dilemmas inherent in the discrimination against them. You have been provided multiple sources and explanations, and we are now at DIDNTHEARTHAT. BMC (2022): An important finding was Pit Bull-type dogs in our community sample, as a group, were not more aggressive or likely to have a behavioral diagnosis than other dogs. As the nascent feld of canine behavior advances, it will be important to better account for human infuences on dog behavior. We have stated this repeatedly. The CDC even supports it and refuses to list breeds in their reports. That same conclusion is echoed by other studies, some dating back to 2016 - but I haven't looked any further than that because it would be too old. Those findings are also supported by multiple secondary sources rather than depending on actual studies which may be construed as primary. How many times do we have to provide the same diffs to you:Nat Geo, The Atlantic, ASPCA, Country Living, MSU. I'm done here. Atsme 💬 📧 19:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I posted this on Trypto's talk, and not yours, because I had a feeling discussing with you would not be productive.... Geogene (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that consensus is not simply a majority wins the argument. You could theoretically have a 2 vs 1 discussion in which the 1 is the consensus because it is determined by an uninvolved party that their policy based position is stronger than the other side of the dispute. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but I resent being accused of "edit warring" by someone who represents an apparent minority viewpoint who is themselves editing disputed text back into the article. And then telling me I shouldn't be editing the article at all. Geogene (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'd just like to point out that I'm in no way an expert on dog matters, so I'm not necessarily the best person to consult about what seems like very specific issues within this field. I'm merely reviewing as a layreader. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. At this point, I don't know whether I want to propose an interaction ban, request full protection of the page to prevent edit warring, or take the whole effing thing to ArbCom. I've said what I think about the quotes at the article talk page. I've also said what I think about the accusations of bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

Tryptofish, per...I was wondering if you would take a look at [123], thank you, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Ozzie, thank you very much for thinking of me. I'm very sorry that I'm absolutely swamped both with on-wiki issues and stuff I'm doing in real life, and I simply do not have the bandwidth to do a GA review of the page. Perhaps another of my talk page participants could help you with it? I wish I could, but this is the fact. If you encounter any specific questions in the course of the review, please feel free to ask me about that. Good luck with it! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

yes it is larger than usual(for an article) , should you know of anyone let me know, thanks, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The ping got screwed up

So I'll just let you know here that I mentioned you...not a biggy. Atsme 💬 📧 21:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. (You show excellent taste in the name!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

---

In light of this year's disturbing IUCN assessment of Acipenseriformes, I just wanted to make sure that our highly derived Tryptofishiformes is still a species of least concern. It was recently spotted in the quiet, low salinity topic areas of Wikipedia's Tenir A Bay, but is known to occasionally get caught in the turbulent flow where fresh editors intersect with salty ones. Atsme 💬 📧 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely of low concern. I hope that the rare Atsmeopterix is doing OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We all heard the spirit song. Atsme 💬 📧 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The names though. Define low concern? I'm concerned about the both of you every day. It's why I sing morning songs. Maybe it doesn't actually do anything and I am just singing to the wind or maybe, just maybe, the colors hear me and the wind carries my song to each of you and feeds your SpiritSong with renewed life, vigor and health. Either way I think I'll keep singing just in case. You are both loved. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Group hug. (I own a rental property on Sanibel Island, Florida, so I could probably use one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure the significance of that so I looked it up. I concur, you could use a hug immediately. --ARoseWolf 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's pretty far from Alaska. It was pretty much ground zero for Hurricane Ian. I've just today been able to see some photos taken by a drone, and it's a lot better (for me) than it might have been (but horrible for a lot of other people). It's a vacation property that I inherited from my parents, who bought it back when it was cheap. I personally haven't been there for several years, but I've been renting it very profitably as a short-term vacation rental property. It is/was a beautiful beachfront condo, looking out directly on the Gulf of Mexico. (Past renters over the years have included Helmut Schmidt and Dan Quayle and their families.) Just a few months ago, someone offered me $1.3 million to buy it, and I'm kicking myself now for not going for it then. It's on the third floor of a four-story building. The photos show, for my unit, very little direct damage, and I can even see in through a window (one place where the shades are up) that a lamp and a picture on the wall are still there and look OK. Just looks like there's a torn window screen. There was roof damage, so there may be some water entry, if that leaked down from the fourth floor. But that's just for me. The second floor looks very badly damaged, and first floor was completely blown through by the flood. The weight-bearing walls are still there, but you can see straight through the first floor from one side to the other, with just rubble there. Those poor people! And, as can be seen in news stories, the bridge to the island completely collapsed. So it's going to be a very long time until I can do anything more than collect insurance. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to vent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Tryp. I don't get much outside news where I am and I barely am even online outside Wikipedia. I had heard about the hurricane but very limited about it's details. My daughter's father's family lives down that way though just not as close as your rental property, thank the universe. Their greatest concern is usually tornado's. Regardless, I am very empathetic to the losses that many are feeling at this moment. I hope there is no further loss of life as material things can be replaced. That's the spirit, Atsme!! --ARoseWolf 20:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, really. On balance, I feel lucky. After all, it was just material things, and I'm fortunate not to be suffering the losses of life or home that so many other people have been subjected to. And financial things are just... financial. Overall, I'm really quite fortunate in terms of my financial situation, and I do realize that. It's just that the news is so unexpected and surprising. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Unexpected indeed. I remember the first winter after we moved up here we learned why the house has a second story door to seemingly nowhere. I didn't get the chance to ask about that before we moved in but it was quite a shock that winter when I found out exactly why. Because of the valley we live in the winds whip through like a tunnel and so any loose fallen snow is picked up and pushed rather easily by the wind, sometimes reaching as high as 60 mph. Anything solid is going to collect that snow so it buries the first floor of the house rather quickly. The door is so you can leave the house without having to dig your way out, paying attention to where you step so you don't disappear in the drift or pileup. Unexpected things happen because we live in a remarkable world we barely understand. I just hate when those unexpected things cause people a lot of hurt because this world and all of its amazing details is really beautiful, despite its sometimes violent nature and its terrible affect on human lives. --ARoseWolf 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ^ that. Exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy

User talk:Ejacobs8990#October 2022 Why must I interject myself? Why? Because I genuinely believe in what I say. Looks like we both got involved in WP:MEDRS discussions. For more fun go look at User_talk:Bon_courage#Vandalism of Krista Varady's page and tell me I was dumb to get involved so at least I hear it from someone I respect. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've got too many wiki-dramas going on, so I'm not going to get involved in this. My gut reaction is that the newish editor needs to slow down, and Bon courage is right. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for responding. --ARoseWolf 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• ARoseWolf I really respect your motivations but I suspect in this case the cause was already lost. Let's see; I'd be pleased to be proved wrong! Bon courage (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (6)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hi Tryptofish, I'm not sure if you like barnstars. Your user page voices a kind of frustration that may make a barnstar feel like a silly gesture. I'm sorry if that's the case. Thank you for being here. All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you very much for that. I appreciate all the encouragement I can get! (My user page, at least the part below the Ukrainian flag, is probably getting stale, and I should probably update it sometime, maybe by rolling it back to something like the earlier iteration. There's a bit of irony, in that my making my user page that way grew out of a dispute with some of the same people you and I are discussing things with now. Alas, some things never seem to change around here. For those playing along, see near the bottom of ANI.) Let me also say that I think you have been very helpful in getting that discussion back on track. There's a very long history behind what most recently manifested in that dispute at ANI, and I sure do hope it can be ended peacefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a barn star...one that is custom made just for you

Trout that used minoxidil!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There's my new high school yearbook photo! As well as a new way to WP:Trout someone! --Tryptofurs

The "Name It What You Will" Award

If after relentless challenges by the WP:DONTGETIT crowd, you somehow managed to keep all or at least a portion of your hair, despite the frustration, you truly deserve recognition. Your hair must be as thick as the skin on the opposition, which means you are not balding, and that's a good thing. Sooo... next time it happens, and it will as long as you edit Wikipedia, just try to relax, drink a cold beer 🍺, eat some dark chocolate 🍪, and buy stock in Rogaine. Atsme 💬 📧 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

But fish don't have hair! Seriously, thank you (of course). I suspect that this refers to the recent thing at ANI. I'm all in, for the beer and chocolate (maybe not at the same time). As for minoxidil, I plead the fifth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

And now, I've just learned of Fish fur! Putin, take that! (Oh wait, did I just violate BLP?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Atsme 💬 📧 21:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Three weeks ago, we were in disagreement in a talk page discussion. However, your prudence and deference towards civil discussion with this 1RR request aided the conversation significantly. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti, thank you very much for that! It means a lot to me, in particular, when editors who have differing perspectives on a content issue can come together to reach consensus. I really appreciate that you recognized this. Thanks, and best wishes to you, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sock tag on Magnatyrannus

Hey Tryptofish. Just wanted to check if this tag was perhaps incorrect? As far as I can tell from the linked case Magnatyrannus has not suspected of being a sock or checked by a CU. They did however make a report about an IP editor attached to that case on 9 October. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You are right, and I screwed up. Thank you for catching that. I just posted an apology on their talk page. I think I have Arifer overload syndrome. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah it looks like a very prolific sock, sorry you're having to deal with that! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Want a couple hours of pp?

Until they get bored? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was logged out when all the fun happened. I'm so sorry I missed it, because it looks to have been very entertaining. And it had nothing to do with Arifer. Some IP from Mumbai (sounds like the first line of a limerick) had put that exhortation to love oneself on Iridescent's talk page, and I rolled it back. So they followed me to here, and even went to other talk pages where I had been, spreading the love. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

There once was an IP from Mumbai

Who my talk page happened to come by

Told me to FU

Which I'm happy to do

So the IP was really a dumb guy!

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Vegan category

I have come across this category vegan sportspeople, I think it should be deleted, what do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree strongly. It's a classic example of WP:NARROWCAT. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi do you mind submitting that for afd if you have the spare time. I am not sure if I have ever submitted a category for deletion before, there are two other vegan categories that probably need to be deleted as well, I will take a look at them later. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we were each waiting for the other to do it. Sure, I'll do it now (cfd, not afd). It's not hard to do, and I'll let you do the other two if you decide to. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Category:Vegan sportspeople. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Psychologist Guy:, in case you didn't see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice! thanks for your help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Gone fishin'

Just a note that I'm going to be away from Wikipedia while attending the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego. (Yay! Finally an in-person meeting after two years of pandemic cancellations.) I'll be back here on Friday, Nov. 18. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edsum says you are going fishing. Can I go Dogging? - Roxy the dog 16:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Roxy! Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we get a summary of the most interesting panels, discussions, and sessions? In layman’s terms, of course? I would be most interested in hearing about this conference. I would also be interested in hearing about SD. I know it’s changed a lot in recent years. I spent a lot of time there many moons ago. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

For me, what was most interesting was the progress being made in examining brain cell activity on the scale of many cells at a time. We have a not-very-good page on electrocorticography, but I'll try to explain it better. There are now better and better electrodes being made for detecting electrical activity from neuron cells (oh, how I wish I had those electrodes when I was active in research!). Unlike recording activity from one cell at a time, or recording the added-up activities of hundreds of cells all together, it's becoming possible to record from hundreds of cells, each cell individually, all at the same time – being able to follow the overall activity of a population of cells in the brain while also being able to resolve each individual cell's activity separately and compare it with all of the others. A lot of this is getting done in animals, where it's also possible to use optogenetics along with miniature cameras to actually look, visually, at the neurons.

But I was especially intrigued by studies being done in human volunteers. For people with epilepsy, most people can be helped with medications. But there are some people with severe epilepsy who have to be treated surgically because the medicines don't work. The way this works, is the person goes into the hospital, and some of these new high-power electrodes are surgically inserted into their brains. I found this external image: [124]. It's comparing some different kinds of methods, but just focus on the two stick-shaped electrodes going into the cartoon brain, one from the left and one from the right. The actual electrodes would be much thinner than the cartoon. The striped parts, inside the brain, would have hundreds of individual points, along their lengths, each of which could record electrical activity from one cell. So there would be two "lines" of hundreds of cells each, that could all be individually and simultaneously monitored, and the paths of the two electrodes would have been carefully selected in advance. Medically, the neurosurgeon would use the recordings to "geolocate" where the epileptic seizures are originating from (the "locus"). The patient stays in the hospital for a few days while the surgeons figure that out, and then a second surgery is done, where the locus of the epilepsy is surgically burned away, with just a small amount of tissue damage that prevents the seizures from happening again. This is way more precise than older kinds of epilepsy surgery, with much less incidental damage to the rest of the brain.

The basic science research happens when the patient voluntarily agrees to take part in other kinds of measurements during the couple of days between the first and second surgeries. This is the stuff I was intrigued by. Sometimes, the research team just correlates the recordings with whatever the patient is doing. Other times, the patient is asked to perform various tasks that basically resemble video games, a typical example being the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. The researchers look at what the neurons are doing while the person is doing the mental tasks. And results are coming in about such things as what happens in particular brain areas when someone is waiting for something to happen, making a choice between options, seeing that the choice was a success, or seeing that the choice was a mistake. Although it gets technical, the patterns of neuron activity are really interesting and some take-home messages are beginning to emerge. Personally, I've been interested in phase precession (sufficiently so that I started our page on it), and it's turning out that this is something that happens when humans are engaging in certain specific kinds of thought processes.

As for San Diego, there does seem to be a lot of new construction going on downtown. I don't know the details, but there is a lot of it across the street from the road that runs along where the Midway is docked. I always like to go to Seaport Village (in fact, if you look at the first two images on our page, the hotel I stayed at is in the background), and quite a few new shops and restaurants have opened up where others had closed, including some new restaurants that haven't opened yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: There's another, closely related, angle on the populations-of-neurons theme that also interested me a lot. It's becoming increasingly clear that the one-brain-region-one-function correlation simply isn't true (as I have long suspected). Stuff like: the hippocampus is for memory, the amygdala is for emotions, even the visual cortex is for processing vision – these things are huge oversimplifications, and most brain functions take place over many different parts of the brain. Matteo Carandini gave a really splendid lecture on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed summary. It will take me some time to read through all those links.

most brain functions take place over many different parts of the brain

Is this kind of distributed networking due to evolutionary efficiency and redundancy? Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that this is part of it. I tend to think – and this is very much my personal opinion – that it's really just human bias that would lead people to think that there should be any reason to have functions localized to specific brain regions. There have to be so many functions carried out by the brain, so why should each function be tucked away in its own private box? We tend to look for patterns, so when it was first observed that brain injury to the hippocampus causes loss of recent memories, for example, then people were quick to conclude that hippocampus=memory. But then place cells (and grid cells) were discovered, and they are about navigating in space but not at all about memory. Carandini and collaborators are now finding that there are cells that also code for navigation and even the direction that the face is pointing towards, in the visual cortex, where we used to think that it was just visual processing happening. But it really makes sense: having a sense in one's mind of where one is, and which way one is looking, is important to a whole lot of things the brain has to deal with, and that includes making sense of what one is seeing (or, where is that sound coming from? or, where is that smell coming from?). So, having redundancy certainly helps in the conventional sense of being able to recover more easily from brain injury, but it also accomplishes a lot in terms of allowing a much greater complexity of function: not just spacial navigation in the sense of where one is walking, but also in the sense of what one is seeing. If you think about it, "evolutionary efficiency and redundancy" are two different things, because redundancy is not efficient, per se. Redundant lines of software would probably slow the execution of the software down. I'd parse it as having evolved to have a "mind" that works as efficiently as possible, even if it looks to the naive observer like there is redundancy in the wiring diagram. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You're very good at explaining things! That's quite a talent you have. I was, in my own dumb way, trying to refer to what Jerry Coyne described, when he wrote, "We are bilaterally symmetrical, bipedal organisms descended from bilaterally symmetrical fishes."[125] He explains the perceived redundancy ("it may be the case that when some new organs evolve, like a lung or kidney or ovary, the genes that make it act bilaterally, giving us two organs instead of one") as a spandrel, ("a fortuitous but nonselected byproduct of a developmental imperative"). Could brain functions taking place over many different parts of the brain be a kind of spandrel in the sense of this structural redundancy? None of this helps me all that much, as I could really use a second brain right about now. I hope you're getting ready to enjoy your weekend. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That's very, very nice of you to say that about me. After a fashion, I've devoted a lot of my career to explaining science, so that means a lot to me. I see that Coyne was a student of Dick Lewontin, one of the great science communicators and thinkers. I think there can also be a sort-of middle ground in which a brain structure is more than just a pretty ornament. I suppose that the architectural version of a spandrel serves some sort of structural support purpose in addition to being pretty, but this is getting out of my comfort level (but I'm pleased that it led me to find the word squinch, which sounds to me like what you get when you squeeze a grinch). Anyway, a brain structure can be redundant and provide "support" for a function that would be less powerful without it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot, before I let you go, I wanted to ask you something else. I had a speculative science fiction question for you that I recently pursued on the refdesk without much progress and I was wondering if you could take a stab at it, so here goes: why can't my brain allow me to focus and work on more than one problem at a time? For example, why can't I read a book, compose a shopping list, write an email, have a phone conversation, and watch a YouTube video--all at the same time? What is it about the brain that limits true multi-tasking to some degree, and are there cases in the literature where some people can achieve a split kind of attention to working problems and tasks? The assumption behind this question is that our bodies and brains are already doing multiple things at once to maintain homeostasis and allow us to function within acceptable parameters, so why can't we harness the ability at the level of conscious attention? In other words, beyond the myriad of calculations occurring in the background to allow an athlete or a chef to do their job, why can't our conscious awareness tap into this skill? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Now that's an immense field of study; see attention and its subtopics including human multitasking, task switching (psychology), and continuous partial attention. There are all levels of degrees of people being somewhat good at it, and that's covered some on the human multitasking page. How well or badly one does it depends on what the tasks are and how much one has practiced doing them (see also young people and their phones, see also young people walking into the street and getting hit by a car while looking at their phones). I think one reason why we aren't better at it is because we haven't evolved to be better at it. And likewise we have evolved to not multitask when a saber-tooth tiger is about to eat us: evolution seems to favor focusing on the immediate task at hand.

But it occurs to me that, while there is an immense amount of human psychology research focused on attention, the time is just now becoming ripe to extend that into neuroscience. I can imagine the new human electrode-based experiments I described above being done while the human volunteer is asked to try to attend to two things at once. That would be a very interesting thing to study, wouldn't it? – and I'm sure there are scientists planning to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's an abstract from the session I was talking about, where they looked at "salience", which is related to attention, although not in the context of multitasking: [126]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And this is the session as a whole: [127]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Podcast

I was wondering if you had a chance to check out season three of the podcast The World as You’ll Know It. They are focusing on brain science this season. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and I'm not sure if I'll have the time to. I took a quick look, and I recognize a lot of names as being important people in their fields. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a quick look. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

PNAS Grammar

I still don't think using the adverb "from" is correct from [128]. Even PNAS uses the adverb "with" in describing "there is substantial overlap in the figures and text of this PNAS article with the article by A. Fernández" Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is what happens when you take language that was carefully crafted over a lengthy period of time on the talk page, and try to change it on the fly without consensus. At this point, I think we either roll it back to where it was before you started changing it, or take it to talk. Not here on my talk page, but at Talk:Ariel Fernandez. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You can take the grammar issue or the overall changes to the article talk then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia grate again

User:Tryptofish/ACE2022. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

AquaDom

You may be interested in this aquarium which has just failed dramatically. I find that this is not unusual and so it really is not a good idea to tap on the glass...! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I had heard about it on the news. Yes, quite a messy business! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 33#My aquarium: a trip down memory lane. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Question (3)

Hey, Tryp - hope all is well and that you're ready for the Holiday "seasoning". Just curious...are you keeping up with any of this info about olfactory viral infections leading to rapid Alzheimer's? Atsme 💬 📧 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and I hope your holidays have the right flavor as well. No, I haven't particularly been following that. I took a look at the paper on which the story you linked was based: [129]. It looks to me to be a fairly small and preliminary study, and it shows correlation rather than causation. Overall, I think that Alzheimer's is one of those diseases that are actually multiple things that are all grouped together under a single name (and in this case, they are focusing just on early-onset Alzheimer's). Do we know that some viruses take up long-term residence in the nervous system? Yes. Is it plausible that they could cause pathological symptoms later on, some time well after an initial infection? Yes. You've probably heard about the "brain fog" that may, perhaps, be associated with some cases of long Covid. This is also a possibility in chronic fatigue syndrome. So is it a plausible candidate for some occurrences of Alzheimer's? Very possibly, but not known for certain one way or the other. It might also be something that "tips the balance" without being the "original" cause. It's probably not the explanation for most cases of Alzheimer's. And it's probably not something that happens to most people who get nasal viral infections. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University

Please see WP:THEUNI. Johns Hopkins University is in the same situation as Ohio State University in that the common usage does not use the "The". In fact, the web page for the University www.jhu.edu does not use "The" at all in any of the mentions of themselves on school mainpage. For example the copyright notice on jhu.edu is "© 2022 Johns Hopkins University. All rights reserved."Naraht (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not worth making a big deal about, so I self-reverted: [130]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanx. And my apologies for the misspelling of the title. I also do that fix (John->Johns) repeatedly so I'm embarrassed that I did it myself. :(Naraht (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That's much-appreciated, and of course, the same to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

ACE2022

Hi. A basic analysis including voter guides is available at User:Kudpung/ACE2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung. I saw your post about it on your own talk page, and I read the analysis yesterday. For what little it may be worth, my own opinion is that the voter guides actually had a rather low impact this year. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Wishing you the best for 2023. I also thought it would be a good time to ask my final question for 2022: why don’t most dogs recognize their own reflection? What’s going on in their brain? Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and of course the same to you. About the dogs, I think it's mostly about one thing not going on in their brains: the concept of "self" in the way that humans have the concept. I'm pretty sure that our (human) sense of self is shared by some non-human primates and maybe a small number of other mammalian species, but that's probably as far as it goes. Dogs look in a mirror and see a dog looking back at them. So do most vertebrates. I know from personal experience that aquarium fish do the same thing that dogs do in that regard. If one puts a mirror onto the aquarium glass, those fish that interact socially with others of their own species will react to it as though some new fish have come into the neighborhood. That's an old fishkeeping trick: if an aggressive fish is bothering other fishes in the tank, a mirror (or even a drawing of photo) a fish of the same species will cause the aggressor to pull up short, and start staring at the image. Siamese fighting fish males will display their fins to a mirror all day long. As for dogs, I remember from my early childhood that my father would make home movies of me playing with our dog, and when we would watch the movies the dog would come running at the movie screen and keep looking behind the screen for where that "other" dog was coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Neural basis of self has some interesting stuff in it. The highly controversial idea of mirror neurons is sometimes used to explain where a sense of self comes from, but it's controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

An edit summary I'm a bit proud of

Hat trick

[131]. If I say so myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You have a lot to be proud of Tryp. You are a great influencer. One of the things I appreciate most about your contributions aside from you being articulate and convincing, especially in debates, is that you inspire people to think. They may not always agree with you for a number of different reasons, but at least for me, you should know by now that I typically invest a great deal of thought into things you say—not necessarily during a discussion, but you can bank on it coming after. A world where everybody thinks the same, feels the same, and likes the same things is not a world I'd want to live in...I don't think. (<––double entendre?) Atsme 💬 📧 17:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, I really do appreciate that. I also appreciate your help with the new editor I pinged you about who is interested in NPP. I know that they'll get excellent guidance from you. I'm going through one of my periods now, in which I feel negatively about Wikipedia, growing out of the AN thread where you and I happen to disagree. It's terribly disheartening, feels like gaslighting. There are now two editors threatening to get me sanctioned, which says more about them than it does me.

I've also been having some medical issues to deal with in real life, that have messed up the holiday period for me. I got back a little while ago from the last round of tests, and I'm relieved to learn that everything is benign, and actually turning out to be pretty trivial. That's way more important than the garbage that is going on here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: our disagreement - I understand, Tryp. It is very difficult when there is such division, and even worse when you are dealing with stress over a personal issue. My position is nuanced, and admittedly, I did not spend a great deal of time analyzing each comment, much less trying to read them all. It was just too much angst for me to deal with, especially in light of what I've had to deal with in the past, as you are well aware. I agreed with what Mr Ernie said, as well as what many others that were support ivotes. I already had a sense of why there was opposition, but I also recalled how quickly the case against Sashi was closed, so there was quite a bit to take in. More important, as you put it and I agree 100%, is your health. I am relieved to know everything checked out ok. Atsme 💬 📧 19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And again, thanks sincerely for saying all of that. Mr Ernie already knows about this, but you might be interested to see this message I posted, growing out of the same AN dispute: [132]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I typed something out here but I just don't think it's worth it to post. All I will say is I wish that editor you link to wouldn't have banned me from their talk page, as I am interested in discussion with them to try to find some common ground. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the version of the comment that you self-reverted, as well as the final version. Let's all try to find common ground, and let's all seek to have a happy wiki-new year. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And... that was quite a clusterfuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Noticeboards remind me of old westerns...some guy is on trial inside the saloon for doing something the locals didn't like. Outside, an angry mob is gathering, waiting impatiently for the verdict, but before the trial ends, somebody yells, "grab a rope!" Atsme 💬 📧 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's true. As should be self-evident by now, I've been giving a lot of thought to fixing or trying to fix the editing culture around here. In the past year, I've written two essays on that, WP:2WRONGS and WP:DEESCALATE. In terms of what's relevant to that particular clusterfuck, 2WRONGS emphasizes that one should defend oneself by explaining what one is doing right, and not what one's accusers are doing wrong. And DEESCALATE emphasizes that one should look for ways to deescalate and not escalate. In deciding how to respond to the accusations that were made against me there, I made a conscious decision to hold myself to both of those things. I know that what I'm about to say is incredibly conceited, but so be it. I think that what I posted, [133], [134], was a master class in how to do that. Mic drop. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, did this really happen: [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to bring awareness to civility and community culture. No matter what the quality is of the product produced, if we didn't create that product in the manner in which it was expected of us (i.e. through kind civil collaboration) then the quality doesn't matter. Can we build an encyclopedia while simultaneously destroying the community helping to build it? Yes. The encyclopedia isn't going anywhere. But then I ask, why? What's the purpose of creating the foundational pillars if the ends justify any means? We all are going to make mistakes but we should hold ourselves to the same standards. To those that are experienced we should expect more responsibility and commitment to the foundational principles, not less. And in the name of losing out on good content in the encyclopedia? At what cost do we gain that content? How is it positive when the user's interaction with others is destructive by its nature? In any situation, explaining what you are doing right rather than focusing on what others are doing wrong should be fundamental. I do believe that a brief overview of the situation is tolerable and expected but what I would like to see is a short summary and then a focus back on "this is what I am doing correct" and "this is how I am trying to resolve the dispute". Too often discussions become a free-for-all attack on opposing viewpoints. The infobox discussion is a prime example. I refuse to get involved in those discussions now, even when asked to. There is so much anger, immediate disdain, and such a lack of empathy and understanding. It permeates this project and it is a worldwide pandemic that rivals some of the largest viral outbreaks in history. Only it doesn't kill your body immediately, it is a slow, bitter and life draining fade. I know this firsthand. I choose to be a Rainbow, not to prove some point, I choose it because I've seen the other side and lived it. I fear it. --ARoseWolf 18:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And purely for the "entertainment" of my talk page participants, see the closed Talk:Artificial seawater#Requested move 5 January 2023. (If I keep someone late for dinner, is "dinner" a proper noun, or an improper one?) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

[142]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

[143]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Tryptofish. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. The Night Watch (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I hope you give this some thought to this Tryptofish. Saw that buidhe asked you about this earlier, but reviewing the harder pages only takes between 15-30 minutes on average, and you don't need to be doing it every day. We would be very glad to have your help, no matter how much time you spend reviewing.

The Night Watch (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. But I just don't have the bandwidth to be able to take this on at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just dropping by

I hope you had an amazing past holiday season, my friend, and I wish you so much positivity for the new year ahead. Nothing is ever easy but I like to think that when others think positive thoughts about us, some way, some how, it makes its way to us and into our lives. Seeing as I believe that then you will most definitely have a very positive year coming up because I think positive thoughts about you every day. I love your Song and I love your Colors. --ARoseWolf 22:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, my good wiki-friend. #An edit summary I'm a bit proud of, just above, goes into what I've most recently been involved with, so I won't repeat any of it here. I know that you are heading into some very cold weather, but I hope and expect that you will find some lovely warmth within it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't an intent to "bargain"...

...I was just attempting to clarify your remarks. Then I said to myself, "meh...just assume good faith" and struck my request accordingly. I'm staunchly opposed to blocks that do not serve a purpose other than retribution. Since you said you were effectively done a block would serve exactly ZERO purpose. If we're letting it just be decided then I will refrain likewise from further comments in the thread unless they directly address me/ask me a question. I don't think we agree on the desired conclusion, but I also think we can agree to disagree and let the chips fall where they may.

I wish you nothing but the best in this new year; sorry for any undue angst. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I likewise wish the best for you. I see from your own talk page that you have been going through some tough times on-wiki, and I can relate to that. I feel strongly that everyone needs to show more kindness to one another, not just in the current dispute, but throughout WP. As for the AN thread, please feel free to say as much or as little as you choose to do. As for me, I am playing it as it goes, and will continue to see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

🌈WaltCip-(talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

I know what's going on at WP:AN right now is pretty damn rough. I admire you being ready, willing and able to voice your opinion, as someone directly affected by the actions of the appellant, despite the repeated pushback. I know my silly little template won't restore your faith in Wikipedia, but hopefully it provides a moment of levity to your day.

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ha! For a brief moment, I saw I had a talk page message with a "January 2023" header, and I thought, well, we all know what. But – now that I read it, what a lovely message! Thanks for what you said about the AN thread, which I really appreciate. It does make me feel much, much better about WP when other editors show such understanding. Thanks so very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, you jokingly asked at AN what "semi-retirement" means. That makes two of us who don't know. Maybe it means that I only edit Wikipedia when I'm not thinking clearly. In real life, I'm semi-retired too, since (at age 66 currently), I no longer do my university job, but I keep going to scientific meetings. Maybe I need some semi-protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT

Not sure how much or how little you’ve been following the discussion of ChatGPT both on and off-wiki, but it’s a real game changer and could be put to good use here to do many of the things you are talking about up above. For example, if someone is being a dick, it could gently intercede and remind the user to keep it cool. Just something to consider. Personally, I would like to see it used for AI-assisted article creation, research, and source text parity verification, but there’s a lot of users who are dead opposed to it on wiki. I’ve been playing around with it and it’s super fun. Given what I’ve seen and experienced, I’m convinced it can help solve disputes, moderate civility, improve morale, and help us write better articles. The naysayers tell us we can’t trust it because it is susceptible to bias and makes mistakes, but that’s what we share in common. I think human-human interaction is great, but human-robot interaction is here and we need to start using it to our advantage. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What could possibly go wrong?

That's certainly thought-provoking. Sort of a high-order "civility bot". I hadn't been following any discussions about it here on-wiki, but I just went and read our page about it. (Gotta say, the fact that it could be led into endorsing Putin's invasion of Ukraine gives me pause.) I do pay attention to real-world progress in strong AI, and my overall impression is that it's certainly progressing fast, although I think it's not "there" yet. On-wiki, I'd think it would be best to start with having more and more AI in the kinds of tasks that we already have bots doing. As I think about "what could possibly go wrong?", something that comes to mind would be a user who feels that they've been unfairly targeted as incivil by the AI, and looking to appeal it. RfA → RfAI, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If you’re a fan of Rick and Morty (and I hope you are), then you know about the Butter Robot. Its sole purpose in life is to pass the butter, but it has just enough emotional intelligence to wonder about its purpose. I think the initial implementation on-wiki for a civility-like ChatGPT bot would be like that. You couldn’t really get it to do anything or run for admin—its purpose would be just to maintain and encourage civility, but it would have enough emotion-like modules (and there are already GPT versions that use these things) to answer questions about civility and leave it at that. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I heard of Rick and Morty... --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you’ll love it. Start with the first season. There’s a learning curve like anything else, but just go with it. The stories get more and more advanced and complex as the episodes progress. If there are aliens in the universe, I guarantee you they are watching this show. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read the long discussion about this (AI, not R&M) at Village Pump Policy. (And I wouldn't be surprised if there are aliens editing Wikipedia.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be that guy, but thank you for reminding me why I don’t visit the VP. What a bunch of spoilsports. Worst discussion ever. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Better to be that guy, than a computer masquerading as that guy (I guess). As it happens, this morning I heard an episode of On Point on NPR that was all about ChatGPT, and naturally I paid extra close attention to it. Two things particularly caught my interest. One was a public high school teacher, who sees it as a useful tool to help in teaching. My own gut reaction regarding teaching was to recoil at the thought that students would use something like this to write their papers for them. But he took a positive view, seeing it as something students could use individually to example better writing. And, on thinking about it more, I can see how something like this could become the next generation of what personal calculators and word-processing became for people of my generation.

The second was a very clever demonstration of a Turing test that someone did with it, that I think gets at something very deep. He asked ChatGPT: "which can go faster, a turtle or a spoon?" It responded that a spoon can go faster than a turtle can, in a way that sounds very thoughtful but was obviously laughable. I think that goes to the heart of what we humans experience as "knowing" something. The guy on the radio said, correctly I think, that systems like ChatGPT do not actually know the meanings of words in the same way that we do. We know, based on long experience, what to associate with the word "spoon", and the words "go faster", and we know right away that it's a non sequitor to talk about a spoon going fast. ChatGPT just knows that there's a database of writings associating turtles with going slower than various other things, and that slow and fast are antonyms of each other. Asked to give an "answer" in a seemingly serious context, it came up with an answer that was oblivious to something that is self-evident to humans. Turing test fail.

By the way, I welcome other talk page participants to comment about any of this, if you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I spent a really long time trying to find you a good link to the specific episode. It’s a fun discussion that balances the pros and cons, knowns and unknowns. I’ve noticed that NPR content has vastly improved over the last year or so, and this is a good example of it. Personal anecdote: I know several people who attended the high school discussed at the end of the episode. They have all gone on to have had interesting and significant careers. Whatever that school is doing, they are doing it right. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: Michael Graziano just weighed in on ChatGPT.[144] Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. He is certainly someone whose views on the topic are significant. I don't have a WSJ account, so I only saw the first 1.5 paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have an Apple device, you can bypass the paywall by clicking "show reader". Then you can either read the entire article in full or go back to the original page and read it in full with images. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have that, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can send a copy of the text version to someone you trust who has Wiki e-mail enabled and they can send it to you. Let me know who I should send it to. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's very nice to offer, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Thanks anyway, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• It sounds like a miniversion of Botipedia that Phil Parker (Insead) is about to launch. It seems to me that context would create an issue, especially when opinions and quotes are involved. I think AI serves a good purpose for grammar and spelling and statements of fact, but even then it's not foolproof. AI cannot write engaging prose very well, and readers need to be engaged. Short stuff like definitions - it's great. There are also tedious chores that AI could perform perfectly for NPP and save editors from burnout. Atsme 💬 📧 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, whatever successes and failures Botipedia might have could be instructive as to the stuff that editors here expressed concern about at the Village Pump discussion that so dismayed Viriditas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  After listening to two experts in vastly different domains talk about the future threat assessment related to information warfare, I’ve recently broadened the scope of my concern. I think it is far more important to invest in using this technology for proactive, defensive measures than as a helpful tool for assistance. Obviously, we can do both, but I think there is greater value in using it to protect us from bad actors seeking to impose Orwellian historical revisionism. In other words, I take the more Asimovian POV. We need to use these tools as allies in the fight against misinformation, not stand in the way of their adoption. To paraphrase Hans Moravec, these things are our children of the human mind. They can represent the worst of us or the best of us, but it’s up to us to raise them well. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

• Congrats on the renaming, Tryp!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, but the rename they chose wasn't my suggestion. If memory serves, I actually suggested "Restricted topics". Then again, I don't much care what they call it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Longevity

Wow - this has my attention - but it's a day late and a dollar short. Atsme 💬 📧 00:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

As basic science, yes, this is significant progress. But it's worth taking note of the fact that most of what they did in showing the role of epigenetics in aging was to make aging worse by increasing the amount of DNA breakage. They then did a little to show that what they caused could be reversed, but that's not the same thing as reversing what happens naturally. And it's a lot easier to break things than to repair them. So it's very far from a practical human application. (By the way, epigenetics is also what we discussed about Staffordshire Bull Terriers, as making up a lot of the differences between dog breeds.) And speaking of aging, I feel very old when I see a university make a glitzy video to publicize a faculty member's research. I sure wish someone could have done that for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (7)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help on my TP lately. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and it's my pleasure. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment threading

Regarding this edit: I'm guessing that although your response is nested one level beneath mine, that you're actually responding to Levivich? I think I've already covered the points you've raised. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct all around. My thinking was that I didn't want to post above you, but I hope this isn't too confusing and that I've cleared it up for you now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Since we were both responding to the same post, conventionally your post would just go below mine at the same nesting level. Thanks for the clarification! isaacl (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

WT:AN

Hi, just a few comments: thank you for your support during WP:FRAM. I try not to remember who was in what camp or said what during that whole ordeal, except a very short list of people who simply and deliberately lied to get at me. So it may happen that I support people in some discussion despite them voting for my ban or desysop or whatever, or that I oppose people even though they were on my side (or not so much on my side as against the WMF actions, as was the position of many). Now, to the business at hand: I noticed your comment at Martinevans because I have that page on my watchlist (having blocked him in the past): considering your comment at the WT:AN discussion, the line " User talk:Martinevans123‎ 15:11 +472‎ ‎Tryptofish talk contribs‎ (→‎Suggested addition: NPA) rollbackthank" in my watchlist piqued my interest, and sure enough the "NPA" turned out to be not a personal attack at all, and not blockworthy in the slightest. Which again reminded me of the position of many people (again, myself included) of "we need to improve, but I do the opposite elsewhere at the same time". So it wasn't a case of me going through your list of contributions, but just a happy coincidence on my watchlist. Fram (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fram, thank you for coming to my talk to follow up on this, and for your kindly and thoughtful explanations. I sincerely appreciate your reaching out in this way, and welcome this discussion.

I'll try to explain some things from my perspective, while also doing what I can to skirt around discussing numerous other editors, because I want to avoid talking about them behind their backs, and I also don't want to needlessly escalate anything by involving them here.

I think we got off on the wrong foot, when I posted at AN talk: "What I'm about to say, please everyone understand it as being said in a lighthearted and friendly way, and nothing more. I think that there must be a very unusual alignment of the stars right now, because I agree, simultaneously, with both redacted and redacted." I've redacted here the names of those two editors, one of whom is banned from my talk page and the other of whom once posted (partly tongue-in-cheek, I think) that he and I cannot stand one another. It's really what I described it as, lighthearted and friendly, and nothing more. Of course, I was also agreeing with them, and they had criticized something you said. So I can appreciate that as you feeling like I had piled on, and I guess that's technically true. Let me explain that I mostly was just taking issue with you having said that you had a hard time taking the OP seriously, when, whatever other human imperfections they have (as we all do), they had started what I think is a useful discussion. I fully recognize that the OP had actually said that you made a valid point about something that they had done, so, personally, I don't have a big problem with your criticism of the OP. More like a quibble, with most of my attention having been directed at the once-in-a-blue-moon circumstance of my finding myself not disagreeing with two other people. In no way did I intend to make a big deal about your comment, and I don't want you to feel like it was anything more than what it really was.

Now, to Martin's talk page. After a CCI editor had posted a critique, Martin replied: "Oh, I see." Then the editor I criticized said: "I... don't think you do. 46 people have explained to you how to rewrite information in your own words, yet here we are." You say above that it's "not a personal attack at all". I disagree. In context, "oh, I see" is more like a cringe than like an arrogant claim of enlightenment. To turn that into a scolding over not having comprehended what 46 people have said (how was that 46 counted? over how much time – clearly not the time of the reply to which Martin was responding? and what is the point of counting to 46, anyway?) is a shaming thing to say, and does nothing to help teach good editing. I told the editor not to do that any more, and that "if you keep it up I will seek sanctions against you." And continuing to do it would be potentially block-worthy.

Since you have been watching his talk, I think you can see that I'm making an effort to teach him how to get back on track. Yes, I consider him a wiki-friend, but I didn't criticize that editor out of taking "sides" with a friend. As for me being imperfect, not always completely consistent – well, of course.

And as you see, I'm trying not to Streisand-effect our discussion in a way that will attract other editors and escalate other disputes that should remain closed. For only that reason, I've decided not to strike anything I said at the other discussion, but I hope you know that I respect your reaching out to me here, and I wish you no ill will. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I didn't mean to discuss other editors here (and no one in that discussionor mentioned here is among those few I completely dislike). I understand your reasoning, both with regards to me as to the MartinEvans discussion, but I don't think something which is the written equivalent of an exasperated sigh is a personal attack or actionable, even if it is in itself not the most civil or productive expression. Considering that following that same comment by Martin, his copyright mentor basically said "I give up" for the same reasons (lack of progress, needing to explain the same things again and again to no avail), an exasperated comment was well warranted. Anyway, I've had my say, and have no beef with you either (amazingly, after all these years, I didn't even have your talk page on my watchlist, so this was apparently our first direct interaction!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

For me, the question is what the author of that "exasperated sigh" thought they would achieve. We're an encyclopedia, trying to help people learn stuff. That includes ourselves, as editors, as well as our readers. KJP1 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ^ exactly that. And I am very pleased that KJP1 has stepped in, where the other mentor ran out of energy, and is helping move that article to a better outcome. We are all volunteers, and it's perfectly reasonable that one person might decide that they prefer not to work on the problem any longer. But it's also something of a tribute to how WP can work well, when another editor volunteers to take up the mantle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

KJP1, I've just read and responded to the latest on Martin's talk. A suggestion from me: don't simply write it for him, make him approach it as a learning process. And I saw recently on your talk page, that you got thanked for "sterling landscaping work at Stowe Gardens". If you pull up weeds, I've got some work for you in my own garden. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Just passing by but I wanted to say, it's very simple for me. Is Martin a wiki-friend? Yes, I consider him a wiki-friend. Has he made mistakes? Yes, he has and he's paid for them. Do I see him trying to improve? Yes, I do and I think he should be given the opportunity to prove that. Many don't get that opportunity. Ultimately, consensus rules. I'm grateful and appreciative that another wiki-friend of mine has been helping to teach him. --ARoseWolf 20:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories

The vegan category has been re-created yet again [145], a similar thing has happened with [146]. I will submit these for deletion but do you think it is worth me asking to have one of these locked as they keep getting re-created. A related discussion about this [147] Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The best step to take now is to nominate the two categories at WP:CfD, where the issues can best be reviewed, and to request WP:SALT as part of your filing. Please drop me a note after you have filed the nomination, and I'll be happy to take a closer look and make comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to the afd [148]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The functionality to like comments would be a terrible idea,

Still it would be useful sometimes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for saying that, and I just sent you a "thanks" notification (but at least, I'll refrain from using Template:Like)! Actually, I really think that what I said in that comment was no big deal, but I'm glad that someone appreciated it. And I very much do think that the impending ArbCom case shows every indication of being an upcoming clusterfuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Time flies, I guess. Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Neuroscience of reading fiction

I’ve been obsessing lately over the neuroscience of reading fiction. I don’t think that linked article has much to say about it, but I could be wrong. Basically, this is where I’m going with this: when I’m deeply engrossed in reading fiction, it doesn’t feel like a passive experience, such as watching a film or TV show. It feels like something more akin to active, conscious, perhaps even lucid dreaming, as my imagination creates this fictional world that I see in language form on the page, and constructs something that is partly visual (mind’s eye?), partly analytical, partly emotional, etc. I have come to realize that it’s entirely magical in a sense, as I can’t seem to understand the actual process at work in my brain. Stranger still, I’ve noticed an additional phenomenon that can only be described as an afterglow; a heightened cognitive state, almost like being drunk or high without the obvious impairment, that quite literally changes my awareness of the world and my interaction with it. I could go on, of course, but you get the drift. What’s going on in my brain when I read fiction, or rather, where do I go to find more information or research on this subject? Thanks for any help you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, I did psilocybin a few days ago, which maybe is related, or maybe not. Anyway, I'm short on time today, but I want to let you know that I did see your post, and I'll follow up some more in a day or so. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need. Post-trip integration and synthesis is far more important than the trip itself, a point many people tend to forget. Do me a favor, though, if you get a chance, give Kind of Blue a renewed listen. It’s one of my fave post-trip albums, and I always hear something new. Listening to music in the afterglow is one of the greatest experiences of all time. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's taken me a while to reply, because I'm actually not sure what to say. This is something that is less understood at the neuroscience level, than at the psychological level. I think that our pages on Attentional control and maybe more specifically Object-based attention are at least a part of the picture, but probably not the whole thing. It seems to me to be not so much a matter of "altered reality", as selective attention. In other words, it involves paying close attention to the story in the book, while blocking out everything else. This close attention can happen while in the process of reading, as well as while thinking back about it after finishing reading. I suspect some people experience it when listening to music. (Maybe it's an adult version of what children do during make-believe play.) When someone becomes completely focused on a story, they can go into particular emotional feelings that match what they are experiencing in the story, and when one focuses entirely on those emotions, other feelings likewise are blocked out of one's mind. I'm going to bet that you experience it when reading a novel that you like, but you don't experience it when you read a novel that disappoints you.

That's what I can come up with for now. I'll probably have some things to say about psychodelics, but I need more time to, as you say, integrate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion and did some browsing. Please see:

1. Transportation theory (psychology)
2. Immersion (virtual reality)
3. Flow (psychology)

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those links. They are indeed relevant, and they are also subjects that are new to me. See, this is more a subject for those versed in psychology, than for a neuroscientist! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for a quick once-over of a draft

Hi! A few months ago, I recall you acted wisely and courteously in a discussion regarding abortion. Because of my personal position on the subject, I feel that I can't decline the draft Draft:National Mobilization for Reproductive Justice. Having worked with the creating editor, I also feel that another editor might even find it suitable for publication to the mainspace. Since you have previously demonstrated sound judgement, I wanted you to weigh in on whether to approve or decline this draft. I can execute the actual actions; this is just out an inclination towards erring on the side of caution for this subject matter. Thank you again for your solid contributions to the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those kind words. I've given it a quick review, and here is what I think.

With a bit of further editing, I think it can pass GNG, and be suitable for moving to mainspace. It does come across as somewhat promotional, and that should be toned down to be more encyclopedic.

In the lead: "and is active today with local committees and monthly meetings around the country" needs to be toned down. (I forget where this is written down, but "today" is deprecated in favor of just writing in the present tense.) It would be good to go through the rest of the page in a similar vein.

The <ref name=>...</ref> notation needs to be used for the cites, especially for the organization website. As is, it seems like there is more non-independent sourcing than there actually is.

The external links need to be pruned to, at most, one.

With that, I think it would be passable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm, indeed

Hello, Tryptofish,

I just read over the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#UPE editor on Menē Inc and I wanted to thank you for standing up for new editors and asking for there to be evidence before assuming the worse. Although it was discovered that the editor WAS a sockpuppet (and I came across a recently created account that was also a sockpuppet that was blocked), I don't think that invalidates the need to not act on pure suspicion. I'll admit that I had a fondness for Moops as they came to my talk page a lot when they were gaining experience and I posted some advice on their talk page. And, I went to one of their originally blocked accounts and saw that I came to the defense of the sockmaster or, at least, raised questions about an indefinite block. So, maybe I tend toward being naive here!

When I was a newer editor, I used to be skeptical over mysterious checkuser blocks but I've come to understand that they have access to information that we will never see. The whole SPI process depends on trust and I trust checkusers' decisions especially when it is backed with the confirmation of a second checkuser. And the sign of recent socking just last month kind of takes the wind out of any defense I might have made for Moops. But I think it's important not to jump into pile-ons until you find the evidence convincing and I hope if I am ever accused of any misconduct that there are editors like you participating in the discussion. Any way, that's just something I wanted to share. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful message, and for the kind words to me. I agree with everything you say about the situation. I must say that I resent Moops for having taken advantage of my good will, and he won't ever have the benefit of that from me again. I do indeed feel very strongly about defending users against accusations based on flimsy evidence, and I have no regrets for having done so. But of course, I change my mind when the evidence tells me that I should. I spent a lot of time semi-mentoring Moops, defending him against the block for making edits that looked like an unapproved bot, helping him format his talk page, and pointing him in the right direction for NPP school. (And persuading Atsme to, in hindsight, waste her time teaching him NPP.) The fact is, that the evidence of him being a UPE started out as so flimsy that I was right to push back, but then more evidence appeared, and the situation became a 180 degree turnaround. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Connectome of an insect brain

I wasn’t sure if you saw this, but here’s a link to the abstract and popular coverage in Gizmodo, Smithsonian, and BBC science focus. "It is the most complete insect brain map ever constructed and the most intricate entire connectome of any animal ever published." Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit slow to reply, but my off-wiki life has been time-consuming the last few days, and it wasn't until now that I had a block of time sufficient for me to give a proper response.

Actually, I hadn't seen it until now, because I'm not as conscientious in following the scientific literature as I was back in the day, so thanks for telling me about it.

It's important work, and there are a lot of "wow"-level things I can say about it. It's pretty mind-blowing (pun intended) that it took 12 years to accumulate the data, from a single specimen of a tiny brain. On one level, it's a big deal to progress from mapping brains with a few hundred neurons, to a brain with 3,016 neurons. On the other hand, there's a huge distance still to go, with human brains at around 86 billion neurons. And this is just a "snapshot" in time, of a larval brain, without knowing how it changes dynamically minute-to-minute, much less year-to-year.

I found it particularly interesting that the neural connections were not simple one-place-to-another maps, but instead, that projections from individual cells went to multiple different brain regions: "visual, smell, and other inputs crossed and interacted en route to output cells" per the Gizmodo source. I've expected that this ought to be the case, and that simple categorizations such as vision and smell being in completely distinct "compartments", or particular brain regions just doing one thing, are oversimplifications. I commented about that in #Gone fishin', above, when I talked about Carandini's work. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: Looking back at that earlier talk thread, you asked me about redundancy in regard to that point about brain regions. I think it's reasonable to interpret the new study as providing actual evidence of such redundancy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No apologies necessary or required; any response from you within the next century is greatly appreciated (I’m reminded of the super slow Martians who take their time delivering a response in Stranger in a Strange Land). I wonder if it’s just me, but I feel kind of depressed when I realize that we don’t have the capacity, knowledge, or technology to even come close to simulating the human brain. Do you honestly think that the connectome of a human brain will always be out of reach, or will we eventually get there? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If I were that pessimistic about the future of neuroscience, I would have gone into a different line of work. We understood the genetic code of the DNA double helix decades before the entire human genome was sequenced. There's a huge amount of information to be gained from connectomes of just certain regions of the mammalian brain, and we've already got significant chunks of that. I believe that the basic code of information coding by the human brain is within reach in the next few years, and we are making impressive progress in understanding all kinds of microanatomical structures. It's flashy to be able to say that the entire connectome of a particular brain sample is mapped out, and I do not mean to belittle it in the least, but we can understand a lot long before we get to that. Because knowledge builds on previous knowledge, it grows exponentially, not linearly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was channeling my inner Veruca Salt ("I want it NOW!"). How is the Human Connectome Project doing? Are they having much progress? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I was today years old when I learned the HCP is studying Amish families with mental disorders. I never heard of or knew about this research. Does this imply that in this population, there is a genetic predisposition towards mental illness, making it easier to study, or is it something else entirely? Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following that research, but the usual reason for following such a group of people is because they have extensive ancestry records, which makes it easier to trace genetics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Tryptofish,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Advise Roxy

Hi! Just thought I'd ask if you could advise Roxy the dog on not editwarring on the Lia Thomas article. I act as if I had an IBan w/ him so will not template or discuss it in his talk page but thought he'd listen to you. I'd rather not see Roxy find themselves in trouble again seeing the good work he's been doing in the alt medicine topic the past few months. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm and  Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quoted

I've quoted you in my recent evidence statement at ArbCom here. Due to word limitations, I only quoted a part of your statement. I hope it is ok with you. If you think I am misquoting you or that I misunderstood your point, please let me know and I'll refactor what I wrote or strike the quote out. As someone subject to being misquoted, I certainly don't want to do it myself to anyone. (To be clear, you are not a party and you are in no danger of being sanctioned for anything). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, and thank you for letting me know. I've looked at it carefully, and you quoted me accurately, and it still reflects my current beliefs.

I found that section of your evidence interesting and potentially significant, including that the course instructor has been making content-related edits in the case scope, outside of her course instructor role, prior to the publication of the academic paper. ArbCom pre-decided that they will not regard the allegation of outing to be admissible, and I get the feeling that they have been operating under the belief that "if it's in a peer-reviewed academic paper, then it's going to look bad for Wikipedia if we sanction someone with academic credentials for doing what they do professionally." I don't know if they really believe that, and I've been trying to tell them that such an approach might be a mistake ([149]), but it's hard for me to determine where they really are on that point. I'll certainly keep watching closely how they respond to your evidence.

I also noted the recent talk between you and one of the Arbs about word limits and the response page you have in your user space. The Arb suggested that you submit sections of that response sequentially, and that might be a good idea, maybe. In other words, copy over just one section to the Evidence page, wait for them to summarize it and hat it, then repeat for another section, and another, and so on. It sounds to me like they are permitting and even encouraging it, and it stays within the letter-of-the-law for the rules on word length. I know from past cases that I've followed or participated in, that some Arbs cannot be relied upon to read stuff that isn't on the Evidence page, but it looks pretty certain that they will read what ends up on the Summary of Evidence page for this case. I'm sympathetic that it's difficult for some of the named parties to deal with the way the case is being handled, for a lot of reasons, but I think this might be a pragmatic thing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish Thank you for your reply (if you do so again here, can you WP:ECHO me?) and evidence and related comments. I share your concerns that some parties may be accorded special treatment (also, what worries me is that this could be opening a major can of worms about how to gain control of a topic content on Wikipedia, by media-empowered off-wiki pressure that is often acceptable "out there" but can cross into what we define on-wiki as harassment). You may want to raise your concerns on the arbitration talk page directly; I think this is something that needs to be given much more weight.

And I may follow your advice and copy sections of my Response to the Evidence, once my current overview is summarized. I would hope that any Arbitrator who would read the essay itself would also read mine and VM's responces. But I also know that Arbitrators are pressed for time, so I see where you are coming from. Sigh. This makes me think, once again, Wikipedia's arbitration (or DR in general) system is flawed by not having the position of an advocate. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

New article

For today, I've started a draft about Patata's hummingbird, and I'm rather excited about it. It's a fascinating species, with a fascinating story, and I'm surprised to find that we don't already have a page about it. With some work, I think it could become a Featured Article (or at least a Feathered Article). I urge my talk page participants to take a look at it – and do, please, check the blue links. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the Feathered Article Criteria? I'm very interested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see how you would be. (With my own username, it's more a matter of scale.) I suggest we discuss it on the draft page talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good so far! Needs an infobox. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been told that it's better than anything else I've written on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

UCoC

Hi, thanks for your comments regarding the UCoC. If I may, I'd like to run a couple of things past you just to compare notes, as it were:

1. We are told very c!early that we must not ignore or circumvent the Code in any way. It supersedes any local policy. If something violates the Code as written, it is a violation, irrespective of whether it violates local policy. Right?
2. The UCoC does not mention prior on-wiki disclosure at all. So this should not even be a consideration. The wording of the Code takes precedence.
3. Moreover, it is my understanding that at least part of the private information shared in the essay had not ever been disclosed onwiki.

The UCoC was discussed at length, and in the end this was what was agreed and what the community agreed to have enforced. It seems quite likely that the wording of the Code may evolve over the years, but it's vital that the community can have faith that whatever the Code says at any given time is actually what will be enforced. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 01:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, and for having started what I regard as an important and necessary discussion within the case. My views on these things are still evolving, and shortly after I reply to you here, I'm going to strike-through and change what I said yesterday about your analysis on the case page. One of the perspectives that comes into my thinking is that I'm, personally, not as comfortable with the WMF assuming for themselves a role in setting policies that some of the projects, certainly including en-wiki, have historically handled ourselves (cf the Framgate fiasco). So I'm more ambivalent than you are, in terms of wanting to uphold the CoC. But, that said, I accept that I, like everyone else, edit here under the Terms of Use, and those terms include the CoC, so, them's the rules.

ArbCom is permitted to apply rules more strictly than the CoC, but not more leniently. Full-stop. So if the CoC doesn't make an exception for previous onsite disclosure (I haven't checked that, so I'm taking your word – unless you'd like me to double-check it for you), then ArbCom has to decide to either follow the CoC or make this into another Framgate-like confrontation. But I see now that VM is, at least in part, contesting the very facts of the assertion that there had been onsite disclosure. That needs to be addressed. As you say, if there is private information that had not been disclosed here, then we are in a very serious situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

[150]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone wants to assert that I disclosed my employer and position on Wiki they need to provide a diff where I did that. Nota bene, 14 years ago I had a different employer (which I didn’t disclose either). Volunteer Marek 00:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Rainbolt

Any particular neuroscience opinion on Trevor Rainbolt? His pattern matching skills seem off the charts. He can see a photo for a very brief moment and tell you where in the world it was taken. Reading his bio, it’s hard to tell if he trained his brain to do this or if he was born with the skill. Given people like Joshua Foer, I’m guessing Rainbolt trained his brain to do this, rather than being born with the ability. Any ideas as to what is happening? Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it seems likely to be a combination of innate ability along with serious practice, as these things are not mutually exclusive. I would guess that these individuals are members of larger groups reflected in part by Category:Mnemonists and Category:Mental calculators, along with various other people who cultivate remarkable (if not always really practical) skills. Category:Savants also comes to mind. If you look at Human intelligence#Theories, and especially Theory of multiple intelligences (parenthetically, Howard Gardner taught a class I took in college), you can see that individual people can be very good at one thing in particular, and there can be small numbers of extreme cases of that. As with other things we've discussed, this is largely psychology, rather than neuroscience. What kind of cellular processes could underlie these phenomena, that's not known. If you look at Savant syndrome#Acquired cases, it seems to be documented that certain kinds of brain injuries can confer such abilities, so there would appear to be something biological to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Surely, neuroscience knows something! Can it help me pick a winning lottery ticket? Heh. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not telling! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it’s time to read How Not to Be Wrong. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Never bet against a scientist! (evil laughter) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)